EXODUS 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

Authorship: See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. p. 112 concerning Mosaic authorship.

D. Moses travels back to Egypt and meets his people, the Jews, and his brother, Aaron. Ex. 4:20-31

The Great Metaphor of Israel being taken out of Egypt: As I was in the middle of my study of Psalm 47, I suddenly connected it to the history of Israel. Then, a lot of why’s suddenly began to be answered. God has Jacob and his family in the Land of Promise; why does He remove them from the Land of Promise, put them into Egypt, and then take them out? There are several reasons: (1) this is an unprecedented event in history, known to the entire world. It was clear to the world that the God of Israel was more powerful than the gods of Egypt, the most powerful nation of the world at that time. (2) God then gave the Land of Promise to Israel, which involved the destruction of a variety of nations, show His superiority over their gods. Anyone outside the Land of Promise could hear about these events and recognize their God as the God of Creation, and believe in Him. (3) A great reason for God choosing these sets of events is also metaphorical. As men, we are born in subjection to sin with no way to remove ourselves from slavery to sin. God makes Himself known to us and He takes those of us who believe in Him out of our slavery to sin.

After this point, some men die in the desert, not appropriating to themselves by faith what God has promised. Some seize this promise and take all that God has for them (the Land of Promise) along with the many blessings which God has for them in this life. This is the generation of believers who believe God after salvation and advance spiritually. In the book of Exodus through the book of Numbers, we will see the first generation of Jews, which I will call Gen X, who fail time and time again and who die the sin unto death in the desert, never reaching the Land of Promise which God has promised them (well, they reach it and they back down). The next generation, the generation of promise, those who came out of Egypt being 20 and younger, believe God and believe His promises, and they will take the Land of Promise and all there which God has for them (houses they did not build, wells they did not dig, a land flowing with milk and honey). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are taken out of slavery to sin, but then we have a life to lead after that. Some believers fail time and time again; some believers do not believe God, and some are taken out of this life by the sin unto death. Others believe God and seize what He has promised, and end up with great prosperity and blessing.

Theory Regarding Egypt: One of the problems in the exodus is the lack of corroboration of evidence from Egypt. We have no Egyptian records indicating that there was this great exodus of Jews from their land; nor one of the great devastation which occurred. In fact, we do not even know which pharaoh was the pharaoh of the exodus. I’ve got a theory, and I do not know how accurate this is, but: the Egyptians suffered an embarrassingly decisive defeat at the hands of their slaves, the Israelites. What occurred was unprecedented in human history. Slave revolts do not result in the complete decimation of the country of their masters. There is no indication that the pharaoh died—only his firstborn—my thinking is that this was such an embarrassment that the Egyptian government did everything possible to cover it up. It is even possible that the pharaoh of the exodus was expunged from Egyptian history and the pharaoh’s on both sides were given longer reigns to take up the slack. We have seen history rewritten in the United States and we have definitely seen it rewritten in the Soviet Union—so it is not a stretch to think that perhaps the rewriting of history has been done before and that is what occurred here. Also, Satan does not want records of this. He does not want us to clearly look back and see the power of God; and Satan certainly played a big part in the history and culture of Egypt, being closely tied into its religion. So, a combination of Satanic influence and human and national pride would result in events of the exodus being expunged from the history of Egypt.

Introduction: Exodus picks up 100–300 years after the death of Joseph and follows seamlessly the history of Israel in Egypt for another century. This chapter begins somewhere between 1650–1550 bc. The Exodus took place between 1550–1440 bc. At some point in time, Joseph is not only just a part of Egyptian history, but he is lost to the Egyptians entirely. Whatever happened, whether the Hyksos dynasty followed Joseph by 50–100 years, destroying most of the records of all recent rulers, or whether this was just lost to that time period, we do not know, but there comes a point where the Egyptians recognized that they had a non-Egyptian population residing in the midst of Egypt, growing incredibly fast. One of Pharaoh's solutions is to enslave the entire Jewish population. When this does not stem the tide of Jewish birth, this Pharaoh or another unofficially orders the midwives to kill the children of the Israelites. When this does not have the achieved result expected, Pharaoh then issues an official decree, demanding the death of all male Jewish babies.

Genesis leaves Joseph, the Prime Minister of Egypt, placed there by God, in a coffin. He had brought with him to Egypt, under God's direction, his brothers. The book of Exodus begins with a conjunction. It is a continuation of the previous Genesis. This conjunction means that it does not stand by itself. Exodus lists the sons of Jacob, also called Israel:

And these are the names of the sons of Israel, who came into Egypt—with Jacob did each man and his household had come—Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. [Exodus 1:1-4]

Jacob was their father. Jesus Christ renamed him Israel in Gen. 32:28. These are named in the same order as they are found in Gen. 35:22b-26. However, they are grouped differently. Whereas Joseph or Jacob may have grouped them strictly as to their mother, the author of Exodus, Moses, groups them slightly differently. Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah are grouped together, all of whom are sons of Leah, who eventually (after the time of Moses) settled in the southern portion of the land of Canaan (with the exception of the tribe of Levi, who was scattered amongst the other tribes, as the Jews are scattered today throughout the world). We will more about these four tribes than the others in the remainder of the Law. Issachar and Zebulun were born to Leah later in life after Jacob sired children through Leah and Rachel's personal servants, Bilhah and Zilpah. Leah seduced her husband Jacob and bore him three more children. Benjamin was the last child born to Jacob through Rachel when Rachel died in childbirth (Joseph was the first). Dan and Naphtali were Bilhah's children, and Gad and Asher were Zilpah's.

And it came to pass that all the persons who were descended from [lit., going out of the loins of] Jacob were seventy-five souls—but Joseph was already in Egypt. So then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. [Ex. 1:5-6]

The word generation, dôwr (ר) [pronounced dore] is used in a number of different ways in Scripture. It can mean a period of time, a generation, an age and even a dwelling, a circle, a ball; it can refer to a time in the past or in the future and to a particular group of people. In this case, it was a reference to the generations which Joseph saw. We are told that he saw the third generation of Ephraim's sons, so this refers to Joseph's children, grandchildren and great grandchildren and their contemporaries. This would place us roughly 100–150 years past the end of Gen. 50.

The Jews grew in population from seventy to two million. This indicates a lot of right man right woman relationships where there is a great deal of affection and love between the couples. Population growth conforms to the equations A_t = A₀e^kt where A₀ is the original population, A_t is the population after t years, and k is a constant (e ≈ 2.71). If we assume that a family grows from two to seven over a period of forty years (that is, they have an average of five children in each family) then the population constant k ≈ .0313. Or, if we take Jacob's family as typical, we have, over a period of fifty years, twelve children resulting from five adults; and by that time, three of the children have between them another two children, our population constant would be approximately 0.0277. These two population constants give us a time period of 300-400 years. Jacob would have been more successful and therefore more prolific (since he had his wives' maids) than the average family. This all mathematically squares with the Bible's time table of 430 years in Egypt (Ex. 12:40), which may include Abram's sojourning in Egypt (see Gen. 12:10 15:13), but I doubt that.

Since Joseph had been put on the throne by God, he was able to watch over his people and to protect them. However, there came a time when God's geographical will for the Jews had to change, so God caused the circumstances to change. After a few generations, what has occurred in the past is, at best, history, and at worst, forgotten. Government leadership was not perpetuated in the Jewish sojourners.

But the sons of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly [lit., swarmed] and multiplied and became extremely strong (or, numerous)—that the land was filled with them. [Ex. 1:7]

We have a polysyndeton here—a repetition of and's to indicate the incredible population growth of the Jews. Combined with this, we have a synonymia [pronounced syn-o-NYM-i-a], which is a repetition of synonyms. The writer here has told us in five ways about the population explosion of the Jews. This indicates growth which even the author Moses finds surprising.

Shârats (ץ ַר ָש ), translated "increased abundantly" means "to swarm, or abound." It is also translated "breed, creep or move." It is in the Qal imperfect. The same word is used in Gen. 1:20, 21 7:21 8:17. Simply put, the Jews had a population explosion. "Multiplied" is also in the Qal imperfect and it means 'to multiply, to become many." The imperfect means uncompleted action, meaning that during the time this passage refers to, they were still multiplying. They were in God's geographical will and we receive blessings as a natural result of being in His will. At first, Joseph, one of their own, was on the throne as the Prime Minister. However, all things are subject to change. It was time for them to return to the land of Canaan and they will require a lot of prodding. People often complain that they do not understand God's will or cannot determine what God's will is for their life. The Jews knew only a small portion of their heritage and they were very stiff-necked. God had to subject them to extremely unpleasant conditions in order to get them to leave Egypt. Most people take a very dim view of slavery, particularly in the United States; however, the Bible at best intimates that slavery is not the best route for a prosperous person to employ (see the book of Philemon). On the other hand, God often used slavery to achieve his purposes. Here, a very evil, unjust brand of slavery was imposed upon the Israelites for the specific purpose of causing them to remain in God's geographical will. Had their misery from being enslaved not been intensified, then they would not have left Egypt under Moses. Because of the slavery which took place in the United States, there were millions of black people who were saved and will spend eternity in God's presence. We can learn in two ways: the easy way or the hard way. God has provided His word and therein we find our direction in life. It is in His Word where we discover God's plan for our life; His will for our life. If we refuse to know Him and His will through His Word, then we learn it the hard way—as did the Jews in the Exodus.

Anti-Semitism developed in Egypt. Under the Pharaoh who put Joseph into power, there was very little anit-Semitism. The Pharaoh put Joseph into power due to his abilities and his race and background were not issues to Pharaoh. However, in almost any country where there are Jews, we eventually find anti-Semitism. It is Satan's plan to try to wipe out the Jewish race so that the promises made by God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could not be fulfilled. Even in areas where the Jews resemble everyone else, and there will still be pockets of anti-Semitism. On the surface level, it is one of the most unreasonable prejudices found. The Jews are generally hard-working, agreeable, prosperous and peaceful. Any nation which treats them fairly is blessed and any nation which discriminates, or persecutes them is reduced in power and often eliminated from history. See the doctrine of anti-Semitism.

We have a difficult time placing a date on this time period. I have heard opinions which vary from 1800's bc to as recently as 1100's bc. We do not have absolutely confirmed reports of the exodus in Egyptian history. We do have mention from time to time of ׳Apiru (or Hapiru) peoples in the Delta region. Whereas this could be the Hebrew people, it may be a word for any outside tribal group residing within the borders of Egypt. The Hebrew word for Hebrew is ‛Ib^erîy (י ̣ר ְב ̣ע) [pronounced ib-REE] and we first saw it used in conjunction with Abraham; after that, it was never used until Joseph's stay in Egypt. In the Egyptian historical documents which we possess, there are several documents which refer to Hapiru peoples populating Egypt; however, these are likely different peoples living in Egypt between the years 2000 and 1200 bc. It is not unlikely that this word was first applied to the Hebrews in the early documents and then came into general usage for any and all displaced peoples in the land of Egypt.

All of the kings of Egypt are referred to in the Bible by the title Pharaoh. This Pharaoh is not the Pharaoh of Ex. 5. The Pharaoh in this verse arose two to eight generations after Joseph. A country requires very little time to degenerate. A country can go from its highest to its lowest point in one generation (take the WW II and the post WW II generation in America; followed almost immediately by the hippie generation, who brought serious degeneracy into our midst). When Joseph died, his position of authority was not perpetuated by another Jew, therefore the Jews lost their position of partial power in Egypt. This was not necessarily a matter of anti-Semitism as we saw the Joseph was head and shoulders above his brothers, his father and his grandfather in the realm of spiritual growth and orientation to God's plan and to His grace. So it is possible for the Pharaoh of Joseph and his sons to recognize the inate ability of Joseph; but to also see that this is lacking in his brothers.

This text reads arose over against Egypt. Rather than saying there arose a king over Egypt who did not know Pharaoh, this king is qualified by the adjective châdâsh (ש ָד ָח ) [pronounced khaw-DAWSH] means new, fresh. This word which is so common in our vocabulary, is found 50 times in the Old Testament. The preposition is ‛al (ל ַע) [pronounced al] and unfortunately all but ignored by Owen. It means upon, on account of, concerning, together with, beyond, over, to, towards, against. What is possibly implied here is an imposition; and definitely elevation. The verb is qûwm (םק) [pronounced koom] and it means to arise, to stand, to stand up; however, this is in the Qal imperfect, indicating a process, not a completed event, which could mean a dynasty. None of this is absolutely conclusive, but there is a strong indication that this is a new, foreign dynasty rising over Egypt. A reasonable guess would be that this is the Hyksos dynasty or the end of the Hyksos dynasty. The latter seems very probable since an Egyptian control would automatically be suspicious of foreigners.

So he said unto his people, "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are too many and mighty [lit., strong due to numbers] for us! Come, let us show ourselves wise with regard to them—so that they do not multiply so much that it would come to pass when war befalls us that they also shall join themselves unto them who hate us, and shall make war upon us, and then go up out of the land." [Ex. 1:9–10]

This Pharaoh, who did not know Joseph, looked upon the Jews as an infiltration and not as a blessing. Obviously, he was not a student of recent Egyptian history. As was mentioned in our study of Genesis, we do not have any historical documents from Egypt for several hundred years, around the time of Joseph's rule. It is possible that this is the first Hyksos dynasty king—a foreign king who has taken over Egypt. The phrasing of this verse would easily allow for this to be from a foreign dynasty

. In any case, if these records were destroyed and say 100 years had passed or this is a foreign king with no sense of Egyptian history, then this Pharaoh would have no way of knowing who Joseph was or how the Jews came to be there. This Pharaoh's concern was to control this foreign population, which seemed to grow much faster than the Egyptian population (which is the result of the lack of right man right woman relationships).

According to this verse, the Jews were not large enough of a population at this point to be a threat to Egypt in terms of a revolution, but they were large enough and indigenous enough that if another nation came to make war with Egypt, their potential alliance with the Jews could be the determining factor in the outcome of such an attack. This Pharaoh will set the stage, but will be long gone by the time of the exodus out of Egypt. His plan of action was to enslave the Jew:

So they set over them chiefs of tribute [or, forced labor], to the end they might humiliate them with their burden—and they built store-cities for Pharaoh even Pithom and Raamses. [Ex. 1:11]

Most translations use the word taskmasters rather than princes of tribute (the literal meaning). It is two Hebrew words: sar (ר ַש ) [pronounced sar] which means Lord or prince and the other is the word miç (ס ̣מ) which properly means burden, and has come to mean tribute, tax or tribute in the form of forced labor. That is, the Jews were expected to serve the Egyptians with slave labor as a form of tribute or tax (this in exchange for living in Egypt). Burden is the word ç^ebâlâh (ה ָל ָב ְס) [pronounced seb-aw-LAW] and it refers particularly to the heavy burdens placed upon the Israelites by Egypt. This word is found only in a few passages in Exodus (Ex. 2:11 5:4, 5 6:6, 7) and could be a blend of Egyptian and Hebrew. Nevertheless, it was likely a word first used when placed under slave labor and never used again after the exodus.

The term "store-cities" is rendered elsewhere as "treasure cities" or "storage cities." It is actually two words: the feminine plural noun miç^ek^enâh (ה ָנ ְ ְס ̣מ) [pronounced mis-ken-AW] and it means treasure, storage, supply and the feminine plural noun construct of ‛îyr (רי ̣ע ) [pronounced eer] which simply means city, town. The contstruct means that it modifies or is closely related to the previous noun, so together they means cities of treasures, storage cities. The Greek word used is "fortified cities." The two would go hand in hand; if a city was used to store a lot of Egypt's wealth, then it would very likely be well-fortified. The Egyptians were degenerate but not stupid.

Pithom is mentioned only here in the Bible, but it is definitely a proper name from Egypt from at least 1300 bc on. It's location is disputed. Raamses [pronounced RĂ-ăm-sez] was the city where the 19th and 20th dynasties resided (this is circa the first half of the second millennium bc—not too far off from this time period). It is located in the northeast delta area, but its exact location is disputed also.

But the more they were humiliating them, the more were they multiplying, and the more were they breaking forth—so they were filled with alarm, because of the sons of Israel. [Ex. 1:12]

The Piel imperfect of ‛ănâh (ה ָנְַע) [pronounced aw-NAW] means to look down, to browbeat, to afflict, to humiliate. In the intensive Piel stem, we are being told that the Egypt resorted to prejudice and viciousness. Slavery is not a horrible institution; however, when it is abused, as it is here, only being in God's will with one's right-man or right-woman can counteract the affects of its cruelty. The Egyptians tried to confine the Israelites to specific areas, to forced labor, to a humiliated state of being; yet the Jews continued to pârats ( ַר ָ) [pronounced paw-RATS], which means to break out, to break forth, to spread out. Because of the tremendous population explosion that the Jews enjoyed because of their good marital situations, the Egyptian scould not confine them in any way. In fact, they, the slave owners and taskmasters feared Israel in general because their population growth far exceeded that of the free Egyptians.

And the Egyptians rigorously made the sons of Israel serve with [unusually brutal] rigor; and embittered their lives with harsh service, in clay and in bricks, and in all manner of service in the field—all their service, wherein they served them under [unusually brutal] cruelty. [Ex. 1:13–14]

Vv. 13 and 14 contain the same two words. At the end of v. 13, we have the Hiphil imperfect, 3^rd masculine plural of ׳âbar (ר ַב ָע) [pronounced aw-BAR] and it means to work, to serve. The Hiphil is the causative stem, meaning the Egyptians caused the Israelites to serve them. In v. 14, this verb is in the Qal perfect, 3^rd person plural, so the subject of the verb is the Israelites and this verse looks upon this as a completed action. The way in which they caused the Israelites to serve them was with rigor. We have the preposition b^e (ְ

) [pronounced beh with a very short eh] and this means in, into, at, by, on, with, within. Here, with is the most likely translation. Perek^e (׃ך ∵ר ∵) [pronounced PEH-rek] and it means harshness, severity; its root word meaning is to break, to fracture. Therefore the translations which merely state that the Jews served with rigor leaves the cruelty and severity out of the meaning, which certainly belongs here. I have translated those last two words somewhat differently in both verses, one corresponding to the causative stem and the other to the active stem of ׳âbar.

The Jews occupied the land of Goshen, which was only a short distance away from all the building projects that the Egyptian Pharaoh's had going. King Rameses II (the Great) was a man who was deceitful and had a passion for building. His name is found on an incredible number of temples, public buildings—a number which are beyond human imagination (and these are the ones which we have uncovered). After a great deal of detective work, it became clear that many of these buildings had been built centuries before Rameses II; he just saw to it that his monogram was carved on all of them. However, it is very likely that the archeological findings of Professor Pierre Montet of Strasbourg between 1929 and 1932, with Rameses II's stamp were likely created during his reign. In this area, which is near the present fishing village named San there were found a very large number of statues, sphinxes, columns and fragments of buildings, all with his name on them. The Pharaoh's in general had a great lust for building and the Israelites were located quite nearby in the land of Goshen, on a few miles south of the new capital.

The Jews themselves were bright and learned, yet the Egyptians forced upon them hard-labor, designed for slaves. Still, because these Jews had a relationship with the one God of the universe, because they had found their right woman, and because some of them have doctrine, they did not only bear up under these pressures but they thrived. Imagine how difficult it would be to be involved in various forms of mental labor and then be suddenly thrown into hard, physically-demanding labor. This is hot, hard, and physical labor, the kind that would cause many men to buckle under. The Jews, among other things, actually built two fortified storage cities, which would certainly demand a lot of stone and brick. With today's modern equipment, that is difficult work. Then it was strenuous beyond what most men today could imagine. This took patience and trust. They waited upon God's perfect timing. In fact, they waited possibly two centuries and served Egypt as slaves for that long, waiting upon God. There is no mention of revolution or of rebellion. The Jews endured this servitude. God had not directed them to do otherwise. However, what occurred in the Jews was a certain type of mental attitude caused by being under generations of slavery. Because of this, God had to destroy that generation like a cancer before they infected their sons and daughters with their slave mentality.

Pharaoh's Second Solution: Command the Midwives to Kill the Israelite Male Children

Then spoke the king of Egypt to the Hebrew midwives—of whom the name of the one was Shiprah and the name of the other was Puah; [Ex. 1:15]

For this population, there were not only two midwives. There has been a hierarchy set up of midwives, with two women in charge, Shiprah and Puah. It would not make sense for there to be this few midwives for a population of two million Jews, nor would it make sense for all the midwives to be directly under the Pharaoh. The midwives reported to Shiprah and Puah and they reported directly to Pharaoh. In any large city, there is one district attorney—however, he is not prosecuting every criminal case. Under him you have assistant district attorneys. Don't think that those in the ancient world were so backward as to not understand levels of authority. Gleason gives these two famous women the title of administrative superintendents over the obstetrical guild of the Hebrew community

He said, "When you act as midwives unto the Hebrew women, then you shall observe its gender [lit., look upon the birthstool]—If it is a son, then shall you kill it. But if it is a daughter, then shall it live. [Ex. 1:16]

There are several things to note in this passage. First of all, there has been a passage of time from v. 11 to v. 15. The Jews endure slavery, they build two fortified storage cities and they continue to multiply as a race. This would cover at least a generation at least. My point here is that this is a new Pharaoh. This could be two or three or more generations later. Each Pharaoh warns the next Pharaoh about the Jews; or they know why the Jews are under slavery and each new Pharaoh watches them with interest. This is a new tact. Insofar as God is concerned, one anti-Semitic Pharaoh is no more important than the next, so God the Holy Spirit does not even bother to record either Pharaoh's name. In fact, there might be four or five Pharaoh's in this book and God does not distinguish one from the other. However, God the Holy Spirit records the names of the midwives and their names have come down to us almost 4,000 years later. Notice the difference in their stations in life, the midwives as versus the Pharaohs, yet we can only guess as to who each Pharaoh is and God the Holy Spirit has recorded for all eternity the names of the midwives. God has a much different value system than we have. Fame and power in the human realm mean absolutely nothing to God. Personal integrity and day to day choices is much more important. How we treat the Jew is important to God. Their names mean "Beauty" and "Splendor." Since God occassionally renames those that are His (which, incidentally, is not something that we do ourselves), this could be His viewpoint of these two women and these would be their names throughout eternity. It is also very likely that thexe two women did have a place of authority over the midwives throughout all of Egypt, as it was unlikely that there were just two midwives. Or they were the midwives for that particular area. In either case, they were believers in Jesus Christ and they had enough doctrine to realize when they were to obey the civil authorities over them and when they should disobey those authorities. Next notice that there is not an official decree here, as slavery was. The Pharaoh went directly to the midwives and this was to be done surreptitiously.

But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt said unto them—but let the male children live. Then called the king of Egypt for the midwives and said to them, "Wherefore have you done this thing—that you should let the male children live?" And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, "Because not like the Egyptian women are the Hebrew women—for [possibly, but] they are full of life; and before the midwife can come in unto them they have given birth." [Ex. 1:17–19]

The Piel imperfect, 3^rd person feminine plural of châyay (י ַי ָח ) [pronounced khaw-YAH-ee] means to live, to revive. Although the midwives are the subject of the verb, therefore causing the action, this is causing by way of permission; therefore the use of the word let.

Even Pharaoh realized that this was such an outrageous proposition that (1) he could not make it official policy and (2) he could not have the babies murdered right in front of their mothers. So Pharaoh went to the midwives directly and give them an unofficial directive. The midwives, while assisting the Hebrew women, were to kill the male babies but not to be so tactless is to do it right in front of them. They were to deliver the babies and tell them that the baby had been born dead if it was a male. What the midwives have done here is they have lied to the Pharaoh as opposed to lying to the mother. Even the Pharaoh realized that you cannot kill a woman's baby in front of her. So their story to the Pharaoh was that the babies were born before they could get there and born clearly alive. Therefore there was nothing that the midwives could do. It is also possible that they did not lie to Pharaoh—they could have intentionally arrived too late to the births.

In general, the Bible does not encourage civil disobedience. Paul makes it very clear in Rom. 13 that we are to obey the civil authorities over us. Jesus Christ has told us to pay our taxes ("Render unto Cæsar what is Cæsar's."). However, this is a situation which demands that the midwives, as believers in Jesus Christ, oppose the Pharaoh, and, in this situation, possibly even lie to the Pharaoh. They were not disobeying a lawful decree or an official policy. This order was directly from the Pharaoh; it was his idea (although it may have been suggested by one of his underlings) but he did not enact this into law. Disobeying the law is generally not condoned by God; however, in this situation, these women are not disobeying the law. This is akin to a government official (even the president) commanding a woman to have sex with him, or commanding someone to assassinate another official; or demanding that we perjure ourselves in court on his behalf. Pharaoh has put them i the situation where they must either disobey his intentions or disobey the will of God. They chose to disregard Pharaoh's mandates. Therefore, their behavior is not only condoned, but these women have their names recorded forever in God's Word whereas we do not even know the exact names of the Pharaoh's involved. At best, we can make some educated guesses using archeology.

It makes me grimace when I cover a topic like this because, for some people, this is all the light that they need. They take a concept like this and somehow manage to distort it into bombing abortion clinics and terrorizing those who work for abortion clinics; becoming pacifists under any and all circumstances and refusing to serve their country; refusing to pay all or a portion of their taxes; maintaining an arsenal of unregistered weapons; etc. Before you ever disobey the law in any way, you need to be certain that you are on firm Biblical ground, having been taught carefully verse-by-verse on the topic at hand. Taking three or four verses out of context to support your view is not good enough. Notice exactly the action that these two midwives took: they were unofficially ordered by Pharaoh to surreptitiously kill babies that they had just delivered and they did not kill any babies.

A minor problem must be dealt with here. We have two midwives serving a population of 2,000,000 Jews in the midst of a population explosion. This does not seem possible. Well, in fact, it is not possible. According to Gleason Archer in his Difficulties of the Bible, it was common for the Egyptian to set up bureaucratic chain of command with any governmental agency or activity. We saw this with Joseph. Pharaoh okayed his plan to maintain grain repositories and then put Joseph in charge of it. Joseph would have hired a staff under him to handle this as he would have been the chief administrator of this project. The two midwives named here were the ones who were heads over all the Jewish midwives in the land of Goshen. They were the link between this medical service and the Pharaoh.

So then God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and became extremely numerous. And it came to pass because the midwives feared God, that he gave them households [and families]. [Ex. 1:20-21]

In v. 20, the population explosion continues. We find the word waxed in the KJV and it is old English for became. The Hebrew word ׳âtsam ( ַצ ָע) [pronounced aw-TSAM] means "to become mighty or numerous." Probably, in this case, the best way to understand it it that the Jews became mighty because there were so many of them.

Bayith (ת ̣י ַ) [pronounced BAH-yith], in v. 21, pertains to family, house or household. This literally says that God gave them houses. This is a metonymy where house stands for the accessories of a home—a husband and children. The midwives were often unmarried and therefore without children (as this implies) and in their work, they tended to meet mostly married couples where the wife was about to give birth. God brought to them their right men and provided for them both a household and family. This tells you that it does not matter what your vocation is or where you spend your time; God will bless us with that right person as long as we are patient and remain in His will.

In the Hebrew, one of the equivalent words for salvation was to fear or yârê̓(א ֵר ָי) [pronounced yaw-RAY] and it means both "to fear" and "to revere." When we find this phrase in the OT, we are speaking of people who have believed in Jesus Christ. In the OT times, deities were often very country-specific. We have a similar situation today. In certain areas, such as India, we have people who mostly believe in Hinduism and in the East we have Buddhism. These are no different (and no better) than pagan religions of the old world. However, there is but one true God and there are not many roads to find Him but just one (as Jesus said, "Narrow is the gate and few that are that find it." and "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by me."). Here, these midwives believe in Jesus Christ, the God of Israel. Furthermore, God recognizes their correct judgement and blesses them for it. Before you engage in any sort of civil disobedience, do not use this passage as an excuse, and make certain that Rom. 13 has been thoroughly exegeted for you. Christian activism is a trap and a detrimental to the cause of Christ.

Then Pharaoh commanded to all his people, saying, "Every son that is born to the Hebrews, into the river shall you cast him; but every daughter shall you allow to live." [Ex. 1:22]

Although to the Hebrews is not found in Textus Receptus, this phrase is in the western Samaritan, the Vulgate, and in several targums. Context implies this phrase even if it was not originally written here, but most modern translations insert it.

It is at this point that Pharaoh issues the official decree. He has ordered the murder of thousands of baby Hebrew boys. Here, civil disobedience is appropriate. Notice the hand of Satan behind all of this. The seed of the woman, who will crush Satan's head, shall come through the Jewish race; therefore, it is one of Satan's plans to kill the male children. Also, it has always been Satan's attempt to amalgamate the Jewish race into the population as a whole. If there is no Jewish race, then God's promises to them cannot be fulfilled. The Pharaoh has similar motives (although he has certainly been influenced by Satan). With the large male Jewish population—particularly as slaves—they could revolt at any time, which would be a messy and distressful situation. It is not that the Egyptians could not handle the Jews in war (at that point in time) but that this would disrupt the Pharaoh's rule and engage his army in what would amount to be a civil war. Furthermore, as a male, he doesn't mind having the Jewish women around and it would not be a problem if they were integrated into the Egyptian race. Satan has influenced Pharaoh to both destroy the Jewish race by killing the male population and this could in turn cause them to amalgamate into the general population.

Introduction: Chapter 2 covers the birth of Moses and his young life in the palace. We are told very little about this area of his life—although Moses was undoubtedly the greatest genius in royalty. He had to chose between ruling over Egypt or ruling over a group of ungracious, stiff-necked Jews, as a part of God's plan for his life. It was not a choice made all at once; it involved many small decisions, many of which are made in this chapter. There are few one-shot decisions which impact your entire life for good; in fact only salvation comes to mind. There are a number of one-shot decisions which cause you great grief throughout your life: the choice to engage in pre-marital sex the first time; the decision to try drugs; the decision to marry the wrong person. Almost all the correct things which affect your life for the best requires you to make many correct decisions: the decision to marry the right person is a result of hundreds of decisions; the decision not to take drugs is sometimes almost a daily choice for some people (as is the decision not to drink); spiritual growth is based upon several decisons every single day of your life, the most important of which is to take in God's Word as presented by a pastor-teacher. Moses makes many of those decisions in this chapter. We will follow him from birth to almost age 80 in one chapter. The rest of the Torah cover the last 40 years of his life.

And there went a man of the house of Levi, and married [lit., took] a daughter of Levi. [Ex. 2:1]

The literal word here is house, but it stands for the lineage of Levi. Further, as we have seen in the past, the use of the word daughter means descendant; but not necessarily daughter as we use the word.

We have already examined Levi. We have seen that in conjunction with Simeon, he had a tendency toward horrible cruelty. Together they were self-righteous and the over-reacted. However, even though there are a great many characteristics which are transmitted genetically, everyone has free will and people can chose not to be ruled by their emotions. To examine Gen. 34, we would never suspect that the Levites were to be priests to God. Because of certain denominations and one particular church (which will go unnamed), we have a lot of confused ideas about what the priesthood. We see them as religious figures; those who are closer to God in some ethereal way, those who have a particularly high ranking in the church. In the church age, the time in which we live, every believer is a priest. A priest is someone who represents man to God (whereas, conversely, the prophet represented God to man). There had to be a go-between man and God;. This was made very clear in the Levitical priesthood laws, which we will study. They had to go through all kinds of purification rituals and there were many things which were forbidden them, because it would make them unclean. When a priest is unclean, he cannot be in God's presence. Man, at that time, could not go to God either; not directly. Man is unclean. We are all stained with our personal sins; we all have a sin nature; and we all have Adam's original sin imputed to us. Moses came from this stock; from the family which were to become priests to God on behalf of the Israelites. Moses many times represented the Jews to God and argued on their behalf. Being a man who understood God's Word, Moses was able to do this. To head off any bizarre thinking; Moses argued with God and God was glorified because Moses understood God's Word. Moses did not come up with some kind of an argument that God hadn't thought of, changed God's mind, and then God did things differently. It is sometimes presented that way as language of accommodation. However, God does not change His mind (or "repent," as per the old English term).

And the woman conceived and bare a son; and she observed him, that he was a healthy child [with a good temperament], so she hid him three months. [Ex. 2:2]

Moses, in v. 2, is described via translation variously as good, beautiful, goodly, or fine. The Hebrew word is ţôwb (בת) [pronounced tobe] and it is used of men and women, describing them as good; but it seems to have a very wide range of meanings, translated variously as precious, joyful, kindly, cheerful, etc. It is important, in interpretation here, to remind ourselves that we are speaking of a three-month-old baby. At three months of age, few babies are into gross immorality and almost all of them appear precious to their mothers. In my very limited field of expertise here, I have noticed that what does separate some babies from others is their temperment and their health. Therefore, we will translate this, "healthy with a good temperment."

We have the Qal imperfect, 3^rd person singular of rââh (ה ָא ָר) [pronounced raw-AW] which is the simple word which means to see. However, it has a wide variety of applications; here, in the imperfect (cointuous sense) and considering the object, I have translated this observe. We are not made aware of the nuts and bolts of this law—whether there was a bounty on these male Hebrew babies or whether Pharaoh had commissioned his own soldiers to enforce this law, but even in the land of Goshen, wwhich was primarily Jewish, they still had to hide their infants.

And when she could no longer hide him, she took for him an ark [made out] of papyrus-reeds, and covered it over with bitumen and with pitch, and put therein the child and laid it among the papyrus reeds, upon the bank [lit., lip] of the river. Then did his sister station herself at a distance; to see what would be done with him. [Ex. 2:3–4]

I very much enjoyed the KJV that the ark was covered with "slime and pitch." That would make a wonderful Mother's Day sermon. How many mothers are going to allow their child to get anywhere near "slime"? Perhaps the translator was the kind of man who liked to chide the ladies? The Greek word used in the Septuagint is ἄσφαλτος, which, transliterated, is asphaltos. This is bitumen, which boiled up from the subterranean fountains not far from Babylon and from the bottom of the Dead Sea. It hardens in the sun and is gathered up on the surface of the water (Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies). "Tar" is an acceptable rendering. The bitumen is very easily melted and is very brittle when cold; however, when it is combined with the tar, it becomes a strong cement once it sets up. The ark itself was made from papyrus reeds, very plentiful along the banks of the river.

This idea which came out of the blue to Moses' mother. She knew about Noah and his ark and how it saved him and his small family, the only uncorrupted humans of the antediluvian race. She had an uncorrupted baby and she was going to put him in the ark for God to save him. The Hebrew word here and in Genesis are the same word (however, it is not the same word as found in the ark of the covenant. In each case, the ark held God's super grace hero of his generation in the midst of turmoil all around. Vv. 5-6: the bulrushes, rushes or the flags, as they are called in some translations, where the ark was placed, are papyrus reeds.

Furthermore, the mother of Moses was very authority oriented. It had been the command of Pharaoh to cast all of the male babies into the Nile. This is exactly what she did. She cast Moses into the Nile—however, it was in an ark. Obviously the edict of Pharaoh did not specify that Hebrew male children could not be placed in a container of sorts.

So then the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe by the river, and her maidens were walking by the side of the river—where she saw the ark in the midst of the papyrus reeds, and sent her handmaiden and get it. And she opened and examined the child, and saw [the] infant weeping, so she took pity on him and said, "Of the children of the Hebrews is this." [Ex. 2:5-6]

I have taken a lot of liberties with the translation of this verse. Râ’âh, which we recently saw is the verb to see, I have translated examined. The word for child is na׳ar (ר ַע ַנ) [pronounced NAH-ar] and it can be translated boy, lad, youth, male-child, and in this situation, infant. For some reason, the KJV particles Lo, behold sound too dated for modern English. Instead of translating it as a demonstrative particle, I translated it saw.

The intention of the Pharaoh's daughter to bathe in the river tells us that even she lacked indoor plumbing (which did exist later in Rome). Whereas public bathing for orientals today, it is quite acceptable to the ancient Egyptians. We have actual pictures from monuments of women of rank bathing, attended to by four fremale servants. When she picked the baby Moses up, she immediately knew that this was a Hebrew child because he had been circumcised (when a baby is crying, we all know one of the first things a mother will check for).

Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call for you a woman who is nursing, of the Hebrew women—that she may nurse for you the child?" And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go." So the maid went and called the mother of the child. [Ex. 2:7–8]

Miriam, Moses' sister, has been watching from the background. She makes herself known. Notice that there will be a bit of protocol here. The Pharaoh's daughter is not a stupid woman; she carries the genes of the Pharaoh, who has to have a reasonable amount of intelligence to get there (we will later see that his son will be second in Egypt only to Moses in innate ability). She knows that this woman who was lurking in the background is not just some Hebrew woman who just happened to meander by. Furthermore, by her size, age and health, it is unlikely that she is the mother. The Pharaoh's daughter probably immediately surmised that this woman was the boy's sister. Everyone there knows that the this woman is be the child's mother. This is not said outright to protect the mother and to protect the child.

The verb yânaq (ק ַנ ָי) [pronounced yaw-NAK] in the Qal means to suck but in the Hiphil, it means to cause a baby to nurse or simply to nurse. It is often translated in the KJV, to give suck, however, our modern term to nurse is more than adequate.

And Pharaoh's daughter said to her [the mother], "Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages." So the woman took the child and nursed it. [Ex. 2:9]

Note that nothing is said about the true parents of the child; no one is acknowledging that they are doing anything illegal. Miriam, Moses' sister, who happens to be passing by, just happens to know someone who could nurse this child. Furthermore, the woman, Moses' mother, is paid by the Pharaoh's daughter to nurse the child on her behalf. All of these points of protocol protect the mother and the child. If she is ever caught with the child and questioned, she need only say that she is being paid by the Pharaoh's daughter to nurse it for her. All of this could be verified and the child would remain safe. If the Pharaoh's daughter is questioned with regards to her own lawfulness, she simply discovered an abandoned child–how was she to know it was condemned to death? If this matter were pursued, then she would appeal to her father.

Satan has been warned from the beginning of human history that the seed of the woman would crush his head. Although Satan is not omnipresent, he still has a huge demon force which keeps him informed as to what is occurring throughout the world. Satan is a genius and is able to process a great deal of information; more than we could imagine. He does not know what exactly the savior/deliverer of Israel is going to be; who the seed of the woman who will crush his head will be. He looks for certain signs and is a better student of the Bible than 99,9% of all Christians. So when the time is right, Satan will make an attempt to kill this child before it has grown. He did that here and when Christ was born. And notice: he was not going to take any chances but he would attempt to kill an entire generation, if possible. However, Satan's plans, no matter how genius they are, are no match for God's plans. To those few confused individuals who think that Satan is always after them; first of all, he isn't, and secondly, God is far greater than Satan and God's plan is far greater than Satan's. If you are alive, God has a plan for your life and this plan is far greater than anything Satan could devise. Even if you are a believer and believe (rightly so) that demons plague you; they are a part of Satan's plan and God's plan is far greater. There is no suffering or disaster or persecution or demonic attack that can befall us that God has not made provision for in eternity past. What is usually the case is that a believer, very negative toward God's word and God's plan, has made a total mess out of his own life and now thinks that it is irreparable. Even David with his escapade with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband; that was terrifically bad judgement and one sin compounded after another; and God not only blessed David (after the discipline) but the line of Jesus Christ came through Bathsheba because she was David's right woman. Can you imagine that? After all that David did, God even gave him his right woman and restored the kingdom to him. Don't get any foolish ideas; David was a great man who loved God's Word and grew daily by it. Furthermore, he received discipline which would crush any other person. God blessed David despite his shortcomings. This is how God treats a super grace believer. Had he not married all those other women, he would have met and married Bathsheba and have needed no other woman. But, I digress.

As the child grew, and she (the mother) brought him in to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said, "For out of the water I drew him." [Ex. 2:10]

One of the explanations given for Moses' name is that it is a combination of the word for son (mos) and the name of an Egyptian river God; further, it is stated that this woman may have thought he had been given birth to by the river-god. This is nonsense—she knows that he is an Hebrew and has said so. She is a bright, observant young woman who was raised in the palace whose superstitions are probably not too different from our own. Furthermore, she tells why she named him what she did. Moses was not an unusual name for an Egyptian. In fact, several Pharaoh's names were compounded based upon that root. "Rameses" is actually "Ramose" and "Thutmose" is based upon that root word. The Egyptians and the Jews grew up side by side for 400 years. During that time, although the Hebrews kept themselves relatively isolated, genetically and socially, they would still have a strong influence upon each other's language. In the Hebrew, Moses is Môsheh (ה ∵שמ) [pronounced mo-SHEH] and the word for to draw out is mâshâh (ה ָש ָמ) [pronounced maw-SHAW]. Môsheh also means to draw out of the water. It is very possible that mâshâh is Hebraized Egyptian, seeing that the Pharaoh's daughter named Moses and not his own mother. This word is not found but here in in two much later passages (II Sam. 22:17 Psalm 18:16). The Pharaoh's daughter, by the syntax of the sentence, emphasizes out of the water, using two very Hebrew words, min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min] and mayim (ם ̣י ַמ) [pronounced MAH-yim]. My guess is that she spoke in Egyptian, not using these latter two words but words which were Egyptian for water-saved. Very likely, this was a word of intersection or similarity between the two languages and, the Pharaoh's daughter being as brilliant as she is, rightfully deemed this the most appropriate name for Moses. The name of Moses certainly has elements of Hebrew and Egyptian both in it; which is very appropriate and is one way that we recognize the genius of Moses' adopted mother.

She could provide him the protection that he needed when he was young and the proper training once he has reached an age where he can tell right from wrong (somewhere between 2 and 4). During this time of youth, her brilliance with the languages of the two races would be one way that Moses would develop his ability to think and to reason. Afterward, after Moses has gone through perhaps the most important stage of child growth, he would be exposed to education and training that no other child, other than his step-brother, would have access to. Not every person can appreciate this kind of training and upbringing. No one else would have benefitted by this as much as Moses did. A prime example of the same opportunities is his step-brother. We all have free will and our free will reacts differently to the same stimuli. With two million complainers and stragglers and reversionists, God need to have the right person in leadership. God raised up a leader who knew what to do, although almost everyone in his generation opposed him in some way or another. It was like Noah: Noah taught the gospel for 120 years without a single convert other than his own family and daughter's in law. Not only would most people view Noah is an extraordinarily failed evangelist, but no one in his shoes could have taught God's Word for 120 days even, without some sort of positive response. It is human viewpoint to think that there must be a good response to indicate that we created in God's will. Both Moses and Noah faced very negative responses. Again, to head off those who take everything wrong; who see a little light at the end of the tunnel and race for it. Just because you are stubborn and hard-headed and you make everyone in your periphery angry; this does not mean that you are in God's will or that you are doing god's work. While that is a possibility, is is higl\hly unlikely. God only choses the very best men to lead in the face of constant adversity. These are men of His Word.

We find out about Moses growing up from Acts 7:22: "Now Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds." We find that Moses was treated, as we would expect, just like royalty in his youth from Hebrews. By faith, Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasureds of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. (Acts 7:24–26) I know that some people are concerned when I mention Jesus Christ in the Old Testament and when Yahweh Elohim appears to a patriarch, I tend to call Him Jesus Christ. I take this cue from the writer of Hebrews, this passage. These passages tell us that (1) Moses was raised in the palace; (2) he was given a royal education; (3) his intellectual power was great, as were the things that he did; (4) he chose between a relatively easy life in the castle and a life of hardship leading the Israelites out of Egypt; (5) when it reads that he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, this is renouncing his royal claim to the throne of Egypt.

And it came to pass in those days when Moses grew up that he went out unto his brethren and looked [with sympathy] on their burdens—and saw an Egyptian hitting a Hebrew—of his brothers. [Ex. 2:11]

It is Stephen, in Acts 7, who tells us that Moses was almost 40 at this time. "But when he was approaching forty, it entered his thinking [lit., heart] to visit his brothers, the sons of Israel." (Acts 7:23)

In v. 11, the verb for looked is our friend rââh, which means to see or to observe but there is some emotion involved. In this situation, because he sees his fellow Hebrews and observes their burden, this emotion is sympathy.

Moses was aware of the fact that he was an Hebrew. At what point in time he found this out, we are not told; nor do we know who told him. It is my guess that his adopted mother probably thought it best not to keep this from him and very likely told him not too long before this verse. To get the proper picture, you must understand that from Moses' infancy up, he was raised in the palace as the son of the Pharaoh's daughter. This would put him in line for the throne of Egypt. Therefore, he received the best training and education. In examining his life, we will see that Moses was a genius in many categories and this was due to his inate ability which was fostered and challenged by a royal education. As a youth, he had been brought up to take Hebrew slavery for granted. Being in the palace, he would be exposed to a great deal of anti-Semitism. His contact with his mother was very likely cut off when he had stopped nursing. My educated guess is that possibly only a few days prior to this, he had been sat down by his adoptive mother and told that he was a Hebrew and told the circumstances of his birth. I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't made a casual anti-Semitic remark within his adopted mother's earshot, and was sat down soon thereafter and told of his background. This would give any young man pause for thought and serious introspection. From a distance, he had seen Hebrews doing slave labor and this was just a part of life. Then, suddenly, he finds that these are his people; not some foreign race which just happened to be there. So he takes a day and more closely examines their lives and their slavery. This moved Moses so that he reacted when he saw one of his brothers being treated cruelly at the hands of an Egyptian.

So he turned this way and that, and, when he saw that there was no man he struck the Egyptian, and hid his body [lit., him] in the sand. [Ex. 2:12]

It sounds as though Moses waited until after the beating; when he believed that he and the Egyptian were alone, and then he killed him with his bare hands. Obviously, Moses was a very powerful man, his physical body being trained as well as his mind in the palace.

There is no moral commentary one way or another about what Moses did. People are confused by acts of believers (in this case, Moses was passively still an unbeliever) and tend to become involved in over-thinking; so we will take this in points: (1) Murder was wrong and murder carried with it a sentence of death (Gen. 9:6). (2) It is doubtful that Moses knew this as a part of God's law. (3) He certainly had moral training in the palace and from his adopted mother. Besides, the Egyptians were not backward barbarians with no moral code or concept of right and wrong. (3) In any case, the law is written on every man's heart (Rom. 2:15). (4) Obviously, this was a powerful emotional response on Moses' part. (5) Furthermore, it is wrong to take the law into one's own hands. (6) Moses did recognize that what he did was wrong, and he fled, fearing retribution. (7) God used this situation as He would have any other situation. The Bible does not condone what Moses did; however, Moses was not executed for this deed. God allowed him to escape.

In the next couple verses, I made several changes from The Emphasized Bible and from the KJV due to anachronism. When Paul is giving a discourse which involves some careful reasoning, each word must be examined and each concept must be unearthed. Here, we are dealing with a narrative and the specific renderings of each word is not quite as important to understand what is going on.

And he went out on the second day, and saw two Hebrews quarreling together; so he said to him that did the wrong, "Why are you striking your companion?" And he said, "Who has set you for a man as a chief and a judge over us? Are you intending [lit., saying in your heart] to kill me as you killed the Egyptian? Then was Moses afraid and said [to himself] "Surely this matter has become known!" [Ex. 2:13-14]

The Hebrews under slavery are not of any high moral character. The one who is in the wrong attacks Moses, verbally (he would not do it physically). The one Jew has something on Moses and he uses it. In fact, he is probably the person who sees to it that this becomes known to Pharaoh (see the next verse). And he lacks any sort of respect for Moses as royalty, indicating that Moses was not dressed in such a way as to call attention to his royal upbringing. However, his people do recognize him and who he is. Moses fall immediately into mental attitude sinning (fear). No where do we hear him appealing to JWHW or calling on God's name. This would indicate that he is an unbeliever or out of fellowship for a long time.

So Pharaoh heard about this matter and sought to kill Moses; and Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh and dwelt in the land of Midian and sat down by the well. [Ex 2:15]

We'll need to do some reconstruction here and attempt to cover some details not covered in these verses:

Even as the heir to the throne, Moses was subject to the laws of the land and Pharaoh would have had him executed. Moses fled quite a distance, dressed as an Egyptian (but not as royalty) so that he could slip out of Egypt undetected. There was obviously very little physical difference between the Jews and the Egyptians, as the daughters of Midian will identify Moses immediately as an Egyptian (this is probably based upon his clothing and accent). He ended up just southeast of the promised land, on the other side of the Salt Sea from what would become Southern Judah. Midian was one of Abraham's sons through his concubine Keturah. She had six sons by him and Midian had five more sons. Abraham sent these sons away (along with his other progeny by his concubines) into the east (Gen. 25:1-6).

Now the priest of Midian [had] seven daughters and they came and drew [water from the well] and filled the troughs to water their father's flock. Then came the shepherds and drove them away, so Moses rose up and helped them and watered their flock. [Ex. 1:16–17]

There was a priesthood which existed prior to the priesthood of Aaron. A priest represented man to God. This was often a family priesthood and this indicates that this man and his seven daughters are very likely all believers in Jesus Christ. A priest-father would certainly be found in a family of believers, such as this one; however, Midian was not a country of believers. There will be later dealings between Israel and Midian which will reveal animosity and enmity (Num. 22:4 25:18 31 Isa. 9:4 10:26).

Usually in the Bible, the sons of a woman are mentioned and the daughters are excluded. Here is an exception. It appears as though this priest (obviously not celibate) had seven daughters and very likely no sons. They were handling the work that his sons would have done. There was not much water in the well and there had been some dispute between them and the shepherds in that area. Whereas the shepherds should have been supporting the priest and growing under his ministry, they were in fact not doing either, indicating that they were a group of unbelievers (hence, the general spiritual degeneracy of Midian). Obviously they were a group of bullies and possibly very immature men. An intelligent believer in Jesus Christ would want to know and ingratiate himself to the daughters of a priest. Not these men.

Moses, again and again, is portrayed physically as a very powerful man. He stood his ground against these shepherds and they backed down. His presence and authority and physical prowess were enough to cause these three or more shepherds to back off. Watering a flock of sheep took a great deal of time and even with seven women, it still took a lot of strength to drop the bucket and pull up the water. This caused their chores to take time. Moses was able to cut this time. However, what also was a factor in the quick return is that, having met Moses, they were a bit more focused and returned without having to go shopping, or whatever they would do when feeding their flock. Moses was a different kind of man. They had been harassed by the unbelieving shepherds for possibly years in a territorial dispute over this well. This was finally a man who stood up for them. The protocol exhibited by this family was as it should have been. Certainly they thought of asking Moses to eat with them at their father's house, but that would have been too forward and presumptuous. Instead, they raced back, told their father, and, under orders from him, returned to ask Moses to dinner.

Then they went in to their father, Reuel, and he said, "Why have you returned so early today?" [Ex. 2:18]

What has occurred up until this time is that it was difficult for them to water their cattle due to the dispute with the other shepherds, who behaved like bullies. They would have to take their cattle there surreptitiously and water them either before or after the other shepherds had been there. Often times they would be chased off, as the shepherds had begun to do that day and they would have to wait for a more opportune time to water their herd. Furthermore, they were not as strong as Moses and could not fetch the water as quickly. Therefore, today, with the help of Moses, they finished watering their cattle much faster than they normally would have. They explain the reason that they have returned so early from watering the flock; they left out the part about running back to their house.

So they said, "An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds. Moreover also he drew [water from the well] for us and watered the flock." And he said to his daughters, "And where [is] he? Why [is] it [that] you left the man [there]. Call him, that he may eat bread." [Ex. 1:19–20]

These women had never met anyone like Moses before; they were reasonably shy around him and must have jumped at the chance to go back to get him. Even shy people, under orders from their father, lose a great deal of their shyness. They returned, brought Moses home for dinner, and Moses was invited to stay with the family. Obviously the father's ulterior motives were (1) to evangelize Moses; (2) to get much needed help with the cattle; and, (3) for Moses to marry one of the daughters. Like any good father, this priest would like for his daughters to marry someone of character and strength. This was perhaps the first man in that area that he had met who had these qualities. The other males in that area were weak, overbearing, thick, contentious, herd-bound and petty.

Moses very likely left Egypt as an unbeliever. Although Joseph's bones were an heritage to the Jews and one of the things in their life which they associated with Jesus Christ, Moses had not been brought up under that environment. Instead, he was brought up in the palace, very likely cut off from his birth mother prior to the age of one, and would have had no reason to have believed in Jesus Christ. He would have been prejudiced against the Jews, and therefore against their God. This priest, on the onther hand, was a believer in JHWH, as were his daughters, and they witnessed to Moses and he not only became a believer, but he experienced his spiritual growth here with this family. Here is another example of a believer in Jesus Christ with a public ministry which had practically no response. This priest had a congregation of nine—his seven daughters, Moses and his wife. He had been unable to even evangelize the shepherds in his periphery. He had one convert outside of his family that we are aware of; a spiritual failure by anyone's standards today. Yet it was his witness to Moses and his teaching to Moses which gave Israel its greatest leader. "Who has despised the day of small things?" (Zech. 4:10) Moses' late conversion may have been one of the reasons that God spared him judgement for killing the Egyptian. Our sins from the past are wiped out once we become believers in Jesus Christ. This is not way made what Moses did right nor does it mean that we should set free prisoners who believe in Jesus Christ. They have a ministry to others who are in jail.

And Moses was well-pleased to dwell with thie man; and he gave Zipporah, his daughter, to Moses. And she bare a son and he called his name Gershom, for he said, "I am a alien in a foreign land." [Ex. 2:21-22]

Generally speaking, the father of the bridegroom would make the official proposal of marriage to the father of the prospective bride. However, in this case there was no father of the bridegroom to consult so tradition was reversed here and it is implied that the father of the bride did the proposing. This did occur in other instances (Josh. 15:16–17 I Sam. 18:27)

Gershom is Gêr^eshôm (םֹש ׃ר ֵ) [pronounced gay-resh-OME]. The Hebrew word for alien is gêr (ר ֵ) [pronounced gare]. A related word is gârash (ש ַר ָ) [pronounced gaw-RASH] and it means to drive out, to cast out. The KJV reads I am a stranger in a strange land. Moses has a second son, not mentioned until Ex. 18:4.

Moses spent 40 years living with this family (Acts 7:30). This was Moses' extended vacation. He had a completely different kind of family, doctrine was taught to him by his father-in-law and God prepared him for forty plus years struggling with a group of hard-headed, obstinate Jews. It is possible that his father-in-law had portions of Scripture from prior to Abraham. We have no idea how it was transmitted during that time period. The popular theory is that it was handed down almost in its entirety as oral tradition, committed to writing by Moses. Here Moses was prepared and trained for what he was about to do. Since the Midiantes were sent out during the time of Abraham, this man would have had no information on the Jewish race and the immediate heritage of Moses. Certainly he would not have had the last 35 chapters of Genesis. At best, and this is even doubtful, he had the first ten chapters of Genesis, or a reasonable knowledge of the events that took place during those years. What I am saying is that we do not know the nuts and bolts of Moses' spiritual growth (and we have bare bones information concerning his growth in the human realm as a leader of men).. We can only intimate that it occurred during this time as he had the ability to lead the Jews once he left Midian.

And it came to pass during those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the sons of Israel sighed because of the[ir] slavery and lamented; and their cry for help, because of [their] slavery, went up to God. [Ex. 2:23]

As long as the Pharaoh, Moses' grandfather, was alive, Moses could be prosecuted and executed for murder. The statute of limitations ran out. However, the cruel treatment of the Jews by the Egyptians had continued and escalated. It was so cruel that the words used here are during those many days. The emphasis of this cruelty is further seen with the use of the polysyndeton (the use of several and's) along with synonyms (sighed, lamented, cry). That is, the life of the Jews was so difficult, that their lives were seen in terms of days and not years. As I have mentioned before, we often do not see God's plan in our lives or in the lives of others because of some suffering. God had to move a population of 2,000,000+ Jews from Egypt to the land of Canaan. You would think that a simple command from God would do the trick; but then you would think that all it would take is for the Bible to forbid pre-marital sex, and that would take care of that issue for all Christians. The Bible does forbid pre-marital sex (I Cor. 7:1 Heb. 13:4) and as you certainly know, millions of Christians ignore this simple command. In the same way, no matter what God did by way of appealing to the Jewish people as a matter of reason, they would not have moved. It took decades of cruel slavery to cause the Jews to leave Egypt and even then, they still desired to return to the leeks and garlic of Egypt (Num. 11:4–5). It is a sad fact but the only way God can reach many of us is through pain and discipline. For those who are parents, you may have two different children, one of whom does what he is told and the other who can only learn something after being spanked. We are the same way. Some of us learn and are guided by God's Word and others of us have no interest in the Scriptures and our only part in God's plan is a recipient of discipline.

And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham with Isaac and with Jacob; so then, God looked upon the sons of Israel and God knew [their plight]. [Ex. 2:24–25]

That God is aware of His covenant with the Jews, the Hebrew reads and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. God's response includes the use of an anaphora (the repetition of the word with); a polysyndeton, and synonymia [pronounced syn-o-NYM-i-a], which is the use of synonymous terms. This emphasizes the closeness of God's observation of the situation and His divine concern.

Obviously, God does not have ears, so He does not hear as we do; and, He doesn't forget us or our problems. This is called language of accommodation. When this verse reads God remembered, this is an anthropopathism. God does not forget. He did not get busy on the other side of the universe, suddenly snap His fingers

and say, Omigosh, I forgot all about those Jews; I'd better take care of them right away. God did not put the Jews into slavery, get busy with some other divine project, and then suddenly remember that He needs to do something about this situation. This is you or me, but not God. God has to allow the proper amount of time to pass in order to fulfill His plan. They had to reach a point of almost unbearable suffering before they would listen to Moses. As we have seen, 40 years ago, Moses was not ready to lead them and they were certainly not ready to follow him. The Jews have been enslaved for about four hundred years. God is fully cognizant of this. He knew it in etrnity past and made provision for it. However, to us, four hundred years seems like an inordinantly long time. Therefore, to us, it seems as though God has forgotten about this situation and, when He finally intervenes, it seems to us as though He has suddenly remembered. That is an anthropopathism; taking divine action, thought and motivation and expressing it in terms of human thoughts.

The last word in v. 25 is yâdaʽ (ע ַד ָי) [pronounced yaw-DAH], is translated quite a number of different ways. It means to know by seeing or by observation and care can be inferred by the use of this word. What has happened is that the Jews prospered and multiplied, and the Egyptians became increasingly more tyrannical This passage indicates that it had gotten to a point when the Jews as a whole were severely burdened by this slavery. As we will see by their comments throughout Exodus, the Jews needed to be placed in a position where this was almost more than they could bear; otherwise, they would not have left Egypt. Just as there are times in our lives when God must place pressure upon us so that we can depend upon Him to make the right choices. However, the more of God's Word that you know, the less often it is that God has to put pressure upon you to make the correct choices.

Why did God wait? Why did he allow this slavery to go on for four hundred years? Let's go back to the days of Noah, when the population was eating, drinking and marrying and giving in marriage. They were too preoccupied with the details of life to give much thought to God. Even though the Jews were under slavery to Egypt, as we have seen, they continued to marry and to have large families. They continued to be preoccupied with the details of life. God had to allow more increasingly pressure to be put upon them by the Pharaoh until they finally cried out to God. God is glorified when we come to Him with our problems. This is a tricky point here. We are to live our lives with knowledge and to deal with our problems by using God's Word in our life. Our souls should be inundated with doctrine and our lives should reflect this. However, there will always be problems and situations that we cannot resolve; it is with these things we go to God in prayer. God is glorified when we recognize His omniscience and call to Him to deal with the situations which are beyond our control. He is also glorified when we deal with the situations within our control as a result of intake of His Word. He is glorified when we recognize we act and when we wait upon Him. The slavery of the Jews had to come to a point where they would depend upon Him. In v. 23, it got to the point where they had to call upon God and God could answer their prayers.

Introduction: While Moses was living in the land of Midian, he became a believer in Jesus Christ and grew spiritually. His new father-in-law was a priest and it does not sound as though there was anyone interested in what he had to say [other than his daughters] until Moses came along. So all of his training and preparation went to a congregation of approximately nine persons. However, he prepared Moses to the point where God was ready to use Him.

Furthermore, in God's eternal record, His Word, we will have recorded permanently the name of this priest living out in the middle of an Arabian desert, unknown and seemingly unimportant. On the other hand, God treats the Egyptian Pharaoh's all as though they are the same person. Their names are not recorded because they received all the glory that they will ever get in their lifetimes as Pharaohs. Now they are persons lost to us in history. We can at best make educated guesses as to the identities of the Pharaoh's during Moses' time.

Now Moses was shepherding the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, priest of Midian; so he led forth the flock behind the desert and came in unto the mountain of God; to Horeb. [Ex. 3:1]

A minor point concerning Moses' father-in-law; he obviously had two names, both Reuel (or Raguel) in Ex. 2:18 and Jethro in Ex. 3:1 (see also Ex. 4:18 and Num. 10:29). For anyone who has had a brother nicknamed Junior or Bubba, or anyone who went by their middle name instead of their first name, this is easily understood.

It was not abnormal for a shepherd to take the flock for a very long distance away, being gone for months at a time. They did not stay in their immediate area because there was room around them and so they did not use up the land and its resources. As Freeman points out, the Midianites with their borders along the eastern portion of Edom, took their flocks as far north as Gilgead and Bashan and as far south as the Ælanitic Gulf.

Chôrêb (ב ֵרֹח) [pronounced kho-RABE] is actually well-transliterated. It means waste, desert, desolation, desert. Not much of a mountain to go to for scenery. It may have been called the mountain of God because of the following incident.

Then appeared the messenger of JHWH unto him, in a flame of fire, from the midst of the thorn bush. So he looked and saw [lit., lo] the thorn bush burning with fire and yet the thorn bush was not consumed. And Moses said, "Please, let me turn aside and see this great sight—why the thorn bush does not burn up." [Ex. 3:2-3]

Jesus Christ is the burning bush. This can be seen in many passages, but from comparing Ex. 3:1with vv. 4, 6 and 7, it is easy to see that the messenger (or angel) of YHWH = YHWH = God. [See the doctrine of the pre-incarnate Christ--not finshed yet!!] There are three persons in the Godhead, three equal in essence and perfection yet different in personality and function. God is one in essence, yet three in person. It has occurred to me, as I am certain that it has to many people, that perhaps the concept of the trinity is an anthropopathism and that we are better able to understand the function of God by seeing Him as three persons. However, the trinity is portrayed in the Bible again and again, both Old Testament and New, to where, if anything, the early revelation of the trinity in the Old Testament, as it is revealed here, for instance, would do more to confuse the reader than to clarify. Furthermore, there are passages which indicate that this is a great truth, rather than language of accommodation (Isa. 48:16 reads: "Come Near to Me, listen to this; from the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now, Lord YHWH has sent Me, and His Spirit."). [See the doctrine of the Trinity not finished yet!!!] To give you the abbreviated version, the trinity is composed of God the Father, who is not seen or felt, who has planned our salvation. Jesus Christ is the revealed member of the trinity, who is YHWH in the Old Testament, when YHWH is anything visible or tangible to man. He is the creator of the universe, the One Who accomplished our salvation, the one Who came to earth as a man and lived among us. The Holy Spirit is the person in the trintiy Who is not seen, but, in some instances, felt. He restored the earth; He indwells us, providing us power and self-restraint; He accomplishes God's will within us. The Holy Spirit does not glorify Himself but God the Father and God the Son. When it comes to language of accommodation, the description of the three members of the Godhead as God the Father and God the Son is language of accomodation. God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-infinite.

There is a portion of The Emphasized Bible which appears to be unique among the various translations in v. 3. It is translated that Moses turns aside and prays. I cannot find another translation which contains the word "pray" in this passage. Certainly, what comes to my mind, is that Moses turns aside, prays, and then looks to the bush. However, this is the Hebrew noun nâʼ (א ָנ) [pronounced naw] which means is a particle of incitement or entreaty. Is is often translated [I] pray [thee] or [I] beseech [thee] (see Ex. 4:18, for instance). It is also rendered now or then. It is difficult to come up with an English equivalent. Moses, in speaking to someone else, might use this term as an entreaty to them; here he is using this term as an entreaty to himself, while talking to himself. To someone else, it is very similar to our use of the word please. To oneself, it is more or less an order or a decision or an act of volition which begins in the mind and is verbalized and then carried out. It is as though Moses is saying to himself, "Okay, Moses, please, get up your nerve and turn aside and look at this marvelous sight." Moses is telling himself what to do as he is somewhat afraid. It is an imperative to oneself. I mention this so that if anyone else is reading the Emphasized Bible, they do not become confused over its translation here. Moses is not going to stop and pray about this. What he feels is some normal apprehension, if not healthy fear.

Now, I want you to notice something which is evident throughout Scripture. God comes to Moses. God does all of the work in our salvation. God searches us out and God speaks to us. No doubt, you have heard of this or that person who gets together a rucksack and goes out into the forest or the desert or to a hill and looks for God. This is human arrogance! You aren't going to go off somewhere and find God. When it is the right time, God will reveal Himself to you, just as He reveals Himself to Moses (or to any other prophet of the Old or New Testament). When Jesus chose His disciples, did they all search Him out? Jesus searched them out and He chose them. The exceptions to this would be one person witnessing to another and leading him to Jesus (John 1:35–42). There is always a calling by God or the witness of another person (which is God calling to us). No one in Scripture ever goes off on a spiritual search for God. That is man's arrogance thinking that he can find God and man's arrogance thinking that he can recognize God when he finds Him.

And YHWH saw that he turned aside to look, so God called to him, out of the midst of the thorn-bush, and said, "Moses, Moses" And he said, "I am here [lit, behold me]." [Ex. 3:4]

This is God's call to Moses. It is one of the very few times that God has called a man using his name twice. We saw it with Abraham (Gen. 22:11) and with Jacob (Gen. 46:2). Moses has been under preparation for God's calling for some time. He is now almost eighty years old (Ex. 7:7); he's been under preparation for eighty years and now God calls him.

And He said, "Do not come any closer; take off your sandals from your feet because the place where you are standing is holy ground." [Ex. 3:5]

Do not come any closer is the negative and the Qal imperfect of qârab (ב ַר ָק) [pronounced kaw-RAB] and it means to approach, to come near. It is a very common verb used extensively in the Old Testament. This is folowed by the adverb of place hălôm (םֹלְַה) [pronounced hal-OME] and it means hither in the old English and here in normal person English. Do not come any closer gives a good English rendition of what has been said here.

The ground being called holy is only because there is a manifestationof God there—Jesus Christ. His presence makes the ground holy. Holy is the word qôdesh (ש ∵דֹק) and it means apartness, holy, sacredness. It is ground and not holy which is in the construct. The construct is a noun which acts like a genative; even an adjective to a certain degree. When we translate this holy ground or even a ground of holiness, we have it exactly backwards; it should be that holy is the primary noun and it should be translated sacredness. Ground is more of the modifier. Everywhere around there is holy; the ground is because it happens to be in the periphery. For where you are standing upon—holy it [is] the ground. Another way to render this verse is the recognize that holy is a noun and it is being emphasized.

Removing one's shoes before entering a temple or any other palce of worship is a typical Oriental custom. This is a mark of respect. We find something similar in Josh. 5:15. Once Moses realized what he was seeing, a manifestation of the living God, he became extremely frightened. We read about some of this in Acts 7:30–33: “And after forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai in the flame of a buring thorn bush. And when Moses saw it, be marveled at the sight; and as he approached to look closely, there came the voice of the Lord: ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God Of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.’ And Moses shook [in fear] and would not venture to look. But the Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place one which you are standing is holy ground.’ “ (Ex. 3:6b, 5).

And he said, "I am the God of your father, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. [Ex. 3:6]

God tells Moses that He is the God of his father. Moses possibly doesn’t even know who his real father is. His mother played a part in his infancy, but possibly none whatsoever in his youth. His father has never been mentioned except as a Levite in Ex. 2:1. And recall that this is written by Moses. It is likely when he wrote Ex. 2:1, he placed in that verse the sum total of his knowledge concerning his father. Moses is not being evangelized at this point. He has already been evangelized and he has responded. He has been under the training of his priest father-in-law. We do not know how much he learned about his true genetic heritage when in the palace of Pharaoh. He obviously knew about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; otherwise this reference would have been lost on him (and it would have been less likely for him to record it). What I have said about his life in the palace concerning his training is reasonable conjecture. It is reasonable that he knew nothing of his true heritage until a few days before he went out among the Jews. Whether his mother was brought in to speak with him or what occurred, we do not know. It is possible that the Pharaoh's daughter was told enough to instruct him concerning his lineage (this she would have learned from Moses' birth mother as her father was a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph). The other possibility is that Reuel, Moses' father-in-law knew a small amount about the people to whom God made His promises (he was, after all, descended from Abraham). My poijnt is that Moses had to have a frame of reference here for what God said to him.

Moses behaves as he should in the presence of God. He is not arrogant and he recognizes his own inadequacies. He doesn't feel as though he must first respect himself and then he can respect God. He doesn't treat God as his best friend and buddy. He respects and fears JHWH and recognzies His power and authority. We have moved so far away from the fear mentioned in the Bible (which we, in fact, like to associate with the Old Testament, but it is found throughout the New) that we no longer possess correct respect for God our Father.

Then said JHWH, "I have seen the humiliation of my people who are in Egypt and their outcry. I have heard away from the face of their task-masters, so I know their sufferings." [Ex. 3:7]

The second sentence in this verse is a bit confusing as to its sentence structure. It begins with the Qal perfect of Shâma‛ (ע ַמ ָש ) [pronounced shaw-MAH] is the simple word for to hear. The perfect tense means that God has known about this from eternity past—He is not in the process of learning a little bit at a time. This is followed by the preposition min (ן ̣מ ) [pronounced min] which attaches itself to a noun or to a verb and carries with it the idea of separation. It can mean out from, out of, on account of, off, on the side of, since, above, than, so that not. Then we have the noun for face. This is most commonly translated from the face of, from the prsence of, from before are common renderings of this combination

. It can be translated as by reason of, because, which is the route most translators took. I have translated this I have heard away from the face of their task-masters, although other translations are quite different. The Emphasized Bible reads by reason of their task-masters and the NASB reads because of their taskmasters. This is followed by a conjunction and the Qal perfect for I know and the direct object, with the 3rd masculine singular suffix, their sufferings.

"Therefore I have come down to deliver them from the hand of the Egyptians and to take them up out of that land into a land good and large, into a land flowing with milk and honey; into the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite." (Ex. 3:8)

The Canaanite was descended from Canaan, a son of Ham. Canaanite is the general term for this group of peoples and they are further subdivided into Hittites, Amorites, and Hivites in Gen. 10:15, 17. The Perizzites, although an early grouping of peoples, are not mentioned in any of the genealogical lists—they spring forth as a tribe in full form in Gen. 13:7 15:20 34:30. Sometimes those who occupied the land prior to the Jews are called the Canaanites and the Perizzites, thus covering all of the different peoples in the land (Gen. 13:7). This is the first mention of the Hivites, who seem to always be grouped with the Jebusites and/or the Perizzites.

There is a right time for everything. God has perfect timing. He knew when the Jews were at a point at which they truly desired to leave Egypt. Prior to this, they were relatively happy and quite prolific. Find their right man or their right woman was enough to keep them contented under moderately brutal slavery. It was not until their slavery became even more cruel and unjust that they cried to their God in pain. Here they are, God's people, serving godless heathen. God is going to give the Jew the land, the land flowing with milk and honey. God also prepares Moses by mentioning the tribes of people who are in the land. This land is large enough to support at least six different waring tribes or factions. This indicates that Israel both has their work cut out for them; but what they will receive will be a large chunk of real estate. The timing is also ideal for the tribes which presently occupy the lan dof Canaan. God had to wait until their degeneracy had reached such a severe level that they would have to be wiped out like a cancer.

It is fairly easy to determine when the Bible is to be taken literally and when it is to be taken figuratively. When God speaks of a land flowing with milk and honey, this does not mean that there will be literal floods of milk and honey. Zûwb (בז) [pronounced zoob] is used in four relatively distinct ways. (1) It means to flow away [with hunger] as we would use the expression pine away [with hunger] as we have in Lam. 4:9. (2) It means to flow or to issue from a woman (Lev. 15:25); it can also refer to the act of discharging from a man (II Sam. 3:29). (3) Zûwb can mean to flow out or to gush out as Psalm 78:20 105:41 Isa. 48:21. (4) And this word is always used in the Qal participial form when describing the promised land. In all four instances, the concept of to flow, to gush is there. Milk and honey speak of prosperity, of wonderful additions to the diet; and here, what is implied is an overabundance of such things, indicating that this will be a land of abundance, prosperity, luxury and divine blessing. This expression is used several times throughout the Bible, as in Num. 13:27 14:8 Deut. 6:3 11:9 Joshua 5:6 Ezek. 20:8 etc. Sometimes the words oil, figs, or butter are added.

"Now therefore, lo, the outcry of the sons of Israel has come in to me; moreover, I have also seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them. [Ex. 3:9]

The Israelites had also reached a point at which they were turning to God for help. Their pain and usfering had reached crisis levels. Someone there had God's Word, as much as had been assembled up to that point, but the majority of the Jews, having found their right woman and begun huge families, were too satisfied for a long time to become concerned about God's plan for their lives.

Now, therefore, come, that I may send you unto Pharaoh, so that you might bring forth my people—the sons of Israel—out of Egypt." [Ex. 3:10]

In verse 10, God uses the second person masculine singular vocative three times (He says, "Come (you)."). God is telling Moses to step forward and to come to attention. He is calling Moses into service. God makes it very clear by using the second person singular three times that it is Moses and no one else that He is drafting into service. Moses very liiely had long ago decided that he would grow old and die in the desert of Midian with his wife and child and in-laws.

But Moses said to God, "Who am I that I should go unto the Pharaoh and that I should bring forth the sons of Israel out of Egypt?" [Ex. 3:11]

Only in the Hebrew or with a very literal translation can you appreciate this. God has used the second personal singular, referring to Moses, three times. Moses responds by using the first person singular three times. "You, step forward, and I will send you to the Pharaoh and I will have you bring forth the children of Israel." "Who am I that I should go to the Pharaoh; that I should bring out the children of Israel?" This is the beginning of the show me a sign mentaility that the Jews fell into. Moses was the first. He sees a burning bush which does not burn up, he recognizes with fear and respect that this is God. Now he wants to know how will he actually know that he is really the person for this job.

This verse is an example of erotesis [pronounced ER-ō-TEE-sis], which is a question which is not used as a question per se—that is, to illicit information. It is used here in the expostulatory sense; that is, to reason earnestly with someone else. Moses is asking God why would he be chosen for a responsibility such as this; implying that he is not qualified. Moses has been out of the palace for forty years now and has been a shepherd and a family man all of this time. He doesn't even look upon is time in the palace as being important as he was only there through adoption and not by birth.

And He said, "I will be with you and this to you shall be the sign that I have sent you: when you bring forth the people out of Egypt you shall do service unto God upon this mountain." [Ex. 3:12]

God has always had a sense of humor. Notice that Moses is asking for some substantiation as to God's choice of him to deliver Israel from the hands of Egypt. He is living a very comfortable life with very few pressures, a wonderful wife and son, and a great family. So he asks God are you sure it's me you wanted? As if God has made a mistake or has got Moses mixed up with someone else. So God gives him a sign; after Moses goes to the Pharaoh, after he leads his people out of Egypt, then God will give Moses a sign that He knew what He was doing when He planned this: Moses will lead the Jews by this mountain and Moses will worship here. That will be the sign to Moses; after leading the people to the point, he will worship God at Mount Horeb. This is after the job has been done the God will give Moses a sign to let him know that God did not make a mistake (when Moses leads the people by the mountain there, obviously God has not made a mistake; because Moses has accomplished what God has sent him to do—or at least, part I; God has not clued Moses into Part II; 40 years of wandering through the desert).

And Moses said to God, "Lo, as surely as I go in to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you' they will certainly say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" [Ex. 3:13]

Not every nation had a direct line to God. Nations were not given their own gods who were equal to the true God, the God of Israel. There has never been an all roads lead to Rome insofar as God is concerned. Sincerity and religious fervor mean nothing to God. God has set up one program; there is one God, existing in three persons; and there is no other. Exclusivity has always been a part of God's plan. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12). God chose to come to a race of people and to work through that race of people in Old Testament times. He chose to do it that way and not to communicate directly to the other races and nations which inhabited the earth at that time. The Hebrews will not follow just any religious or military leader. It is important that Moses is representing the true God. So he asks God for some sort of identification. Here God is providing a miracle for Moses, the burning bush; a miracle that has caused Moses to be filled with fear and respect and now Moses wants to make certain that this is really God.

And God said to Moses, "I AM the One Who keeps on being." And He said, "Thus you will say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" [Ex. 3:14]

The Hebrew copyist reverently transcribed the letters JHWH or YHWH, which is the name of any of the three individual members of the Godhead. These are not two different Hebrew forms but two different English forms. Such reverence for God's name (also called the Tetragrammaton) is clearly refreshing to the familiarity used with the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this Jewish reverence for God's name turned into legalism. The reader was enjoyed to never pronounce this sacred name, but to use a less sacred name, Adonai or Elohim, instead when speaking aloud. In this way, the Sacred Name never reached the ears of a listener, leaving the pronunciation lost forever. The Septuagint further concealed this Sacred Name by using the Greek word κύριος (kurios, meaning "Lord") to translate YHWH [it is significant to note here that Jesus Christ did not anywhere concern Himself with the correct way to pronounce YHWH; He most naturally accepted the title "Lord' (κύριος). The Latin Vulgate did the same thing as do most of our English translations (however, there are visual clues in the English translations: when we find the words "Lord" or "God" written in small caps, this is the translation of YHWH). To further add to the confusion, although YHWH occurs approximately 7,000 times in the Old Testament, it is translated Jehovah less than a dozen times in the RSV and in the AV.

There are actually two problems when it comes to the correct pronunciation of the name of God. First of all, there is no J in the Hebrew (or in the Greek). Even though there are dozens of names like Jacob, Joshua, Judah, Jedediah, James, Jude, etc. there is no letter J in either language. This J has bee inserted instead of a Y (and, occasionally, instead of other letters). In the original Hebrew manuscripts, the words were in all capital consonant letters. When read, the vowels were put in, but not with the tetragrammaton, which was not read. Therefore, the pronunciations has been lost forever to history. The vowel points were added well after the birth of Christ, millenniums after some of the Scriptures were written. Now the vowel points are put in, but it is too late. What has been done is the vowel points for "Adonai" have been placed within JHWH for the present day translation Jehovah. This occurred as late in history as 1520 ad by Galatinus. Even several of his contemporaries objected to this pronunciation as being historically and grammatically inaccurate. Most scholars prefer the pronunciation/translation Yahweh.

"Yahweh is almost always regarded as the third person, singular, masculine, imperfect tense from the root hawah, an old form of the root hayah" [The Emphasized Bible]. Hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] means to be, to exist, to become. Some scholars do not believe that this name for God is tied to the imperfect tense [The New Bible Dictionary by J.D. Douglas, p.478] but regard it as strictly a substantive built upon the word hāwâ. When God told Moses to say I AM has sent you, this is written ’eh^eyeh (ה ∵י ׃ה ∵א ) [pronounced ’e-h^e-YEH]; the superscript e is the way that the Hebrews indicated that there was not to be a vowel there. This is not the same as the tetragrammaton YHWH (הוהי). As Rotherham pointed out, this is closer to the verb become, which is hâwâh (ה ָו ָה) [pronounced haw-WAW or haw-VAW].

One of the unfortunate results of this confusion about God's name is that Jehovah's Witnesses have distorted this loss and have touted it as though they had suddenly discovered it. Then they have distorted JHWH and do not realize (even as the Jews did not realize) that Jesus Christ is JHWH. Strictly speaking, as Douglas points out, this is the only name for God used in the Old Testament. When anyone would "call upon the name of...", the last word would always be YHWH. God will say, "This is My Name forever" [Ex. 3:15]. In the incarnation, we now call on the name of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

God's name is tied directly to this passage of Scripture. In the authorized version, this is translated "I am that I am." In The Emphasized Bible this is translated "I will become whatsoever I please." The verb hâyâh in this verse is repeated, twice in succession then at the end of the verse. It means "to be, to exist, to become." Verbs are repeated in the Hebrew to give great significance to their meaning. This could be translated, "I am that I am"; "I am the one existing [eternally]"; "I keep on being the one existing [eternally]."

What will help us in this translation is an examination of John 8:58. Of all the disciples, he seemed to be the only one to have a grasp as to what was occurring during our Lord's earthly ministry. He may well of been one of the simplest disciples, or, at the very least, the least literate (his Greek is simple enough for the first year Greek student to translate), yet he understood that Jesus Christ claimed to be equal with God and he understood that the cross was necessary. These two points eluded the other disciples during our Lord's earthly ministry, therefore we find His deity emphasized primarily in John's gospel. John 8:57-59 reads: The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said unto them, "Truly truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." Therefore, they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple. Most readers miss the significance of this passage, but this is one of the clear references of Jesus in the New Testament to JHWH in the Old. Certainly, many do not grasp this, but the Jews understood, and saw this statement as blasphemy, and took up stones with which to stone our Lord.

A portion of the Greek from this passage reads: πρὶν ̓Aϐραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἱμί (or, prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi). Γίνομαι is in the aorist middle infinitive, meaning a point int time. It is a deponent verb, which is why it is called the middle voice. The infinitive often states purpose. The word itself, in its most simple derivation means to become; however, to be born or to come into existance are also accurate renderings. The point in time referred to was Abraham's lifetime. Ego is "I" and it is added for emphasis, because grammatically it is not needed. The final word is the absolute status quo verb "to be" in the present active indicative., which is continuous action in the present time. This puts our Lord outside of time, prior to Abraham and continuing up until that moment. Literally, this reads, "Prior to Abraham coming into being, I [even I] AM [or, I kept on existing]." In the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament, when Moses asked our Lord what is His name so that he could give this to the Hebrews, God said, "̓Eγώ εἱμι ὁ ῎Ων." The additional two Greek words are the definite article and the present participle of I am. The participle is a verbal adjective, which, in this case, functions as a substantive. Or, "I, even I, keep on being the one being." Or, "I, even I, am, the I am." Or, "I, even I, keep on being the one who exists [eternally]."

This information was not given to you so that you can grab the first Jehovah's witness that you see and corner them. They are like any other religious unbeliever—this issue is Who and What Jesus Christ did and what He did for them o the cross. They trust completely in His finished work on the cross and they are saved; if they do not, then they will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire (another issue which you do not need to argue with them). Unbelievers who are trying to earn their way into heaven are the most difficult of all to deal with. Jesus Christ and John the Baptist called religious legalists vipers and serpents because they led the Jews astray. If a Jehovah's Witness is interested in teh gospel, then they will approach you or God will call you specifically to work with them; but in generally, you are wasting your time to argue with a Jehovah's Witness (or any other kind of cult member).

And God said yet further to Moses, "Thus you will say to the sons of Israel: 'Yahweh, [the] God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob has sent me to you.' This is my name to times age-abiding, and this my memorial to generations after generation. [Ex. 3:15]

God's Word is God's Word. We often forget that when witnessing to people. We often do not believe in the power and reality of God's word so we think that we must prove that it is true We feel as though we must somehow back up that it is God's Word. God had prepared the Israelites for their deliverance. All Moses has to do is to return to Egypt and to take control. God has already handled all the nuts and bolts of the situation. On the other hand, this does not mean that we begin witnessing or that we take much of an active part in God's plan in the beginning of our new birth. Don't forget that Moses was prepared for perhaps eighty years prior to going into action. Then, after he was prepared, God used Moses. Youthful exuberance is wonderful and is, at times, far preferable to the older Christian who has lost his love of the Word, who is not growing, who is dead in his Christian life. Certainly, a newborn baby is far preferable to a 40 year old man who is still 15 in his lifestyle and thinking. But, a mature person is far superior to the newborn. And he has got the capactity for life, the vision, the direction and the drive. A Christian needs to grow and an emotional lift every Sunday is not enough. Even good Bible teaching every Sunday is not enough. Grounding in the Word is a daily process and God designed, for this dispensation, for pastor-teachers to take us to maturity. Self Bible-study is not a part of the New Testament plan for our growth. Moses learned from his Father-in-law, a priest. We learn and grow through a pastor-teacher. No new baby can pack a lunch box and go off to work and make it in the world at age four weeks. He requires eighteen to twenty-five years of training until he can do this. As Christians, we are the same way. We require the growth and the training. Then, when God opens up a significan trole in His plan for us, then we move into position.

"Go, and you will gather together the elders of Israel and you will say to them, 'Yahweh, [the] God of your fathers has appeared to me, the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, saying, "I am concerned [lit., in visiting, I have visited you] for you and for what is done to you in Egypt" [Ex. 4:16]

The last sentence is called a zeugma [pronounced ZEUG-ma] and it means of unequal yoke (ζεύγμα = yoke). This is where there are two subjects and one verb. Here, what we actually have is the lack of a second subject and a second verb; where there is a second direct object. What is even more unusual is that the verb visit is found here twice, first in the Qal infinitive absolute and secondly in the Qal perfect. As the Qal infinitive absolute, it can stand alone as a verbal noun or it can be used to intensify the meaning of the verb, as it does here. Pâqad (ד ַק ָ) [pronounced paw-KAD] means to visit, to attend to, to muster. When God is the wsubject of the verb visit, two things are implied: this is much more that casual observation; God is not in heaven, He looks down and notices that the Jews are having a rough time of it and decides to do something about it. God realizes completely what is occuring to the Jews and this verb emphasizes the amount of emphathy that He feels for Israel. Secondly, God the Holy Spirit liked to use this word visit as God the Son would actually take up residence on this earth and walk among us, visiting us, an event of 33 years which divides history and stands out as an event like no other—God visiting man on earth; taking part in man's sufferings and day-to-day activities. This continual use of the word in the Old Testament where God is the subject foreshadows the first advent of our Lord (Gen. 21:1 50:24, 25 Ex. 3:16 4:31 13:19 etc.).

"There I say [that] I will bring you up out of the humilitation of Egypt into the land of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite, and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, into a land flowing with milk and honey."' [Ex. 3:17]

Moses is standing there dumbfounded. God has told him in v. 15 exactly what to do. Since it did not seem to sink in, God tells Moses again just exactly what to do in v. 16. He goes directly to the elders of Israel and tells them that he is there as a representative of the God of their fathers.

"So they will listen to your voice; and you will go in—you and the the elders of Israel—to the king of Egypt, and you will say to him, 'Yahweh, God of the Hebrews, has fallen in with us. Now therefore, let us go, we politely ask you, a journey of three days, into the desert, that we may sacrifice to Yahweh, our God.'" [Ex. 3:18]

In v. 18, we have the phrase "we pray thee." This is the same word used for "pray" back in v. 3.It is a polite request and "pray thee" is too old English to communicate what is being said.

A fascinating verb that we have in that verse: the 3rd person, masculine singular, Niphal perfect of qârâh (ה ָר ָק) [pronounced kaw-RAW], which means to encounter, to meet, to befall. The Niphal stem is usually the passive stem; what it indicates here is a chance encounter, one which has not been prearranged. The Niphal can be used in other ways, such as progress or development of the action, but the perfect tense runs counter to that. This stem often emphasizes the action of the verb upon the individual members of the group. Moses is telling Pharaoh that they have had a chance encounter with God (a chance encounter insofar as he, Moses, was concerned—the encounter was known to God from eternity past). God is the subject of this sentence, not Moses or the Hebrews.

"But I know that the king of Egypt will not allow you to go—not [even if compelled] by a firm [or, mighty] hand." [Ex. 3:19]

The last phrase is a bit difficult and several translators differ as to its sense. We have a negative and a prepositional phrase; no verb. The prepositional phrase is by a mighty hand. Rotherham, the literalist, translates this: not even by a firm hand. Owen: unless compelled by a mighty hand. The NASB: except under compulsion with the alternate reading, except by a strong hand. Both renditions can be appropriately interpreted. The Pharaoh would not let the people go, not even under the mighty hand of Moses. It will only be after God puts forth His hand and smashes Egypt with signs and wonders that Pharaoh will allow the Jewish people to leave.

Bullinger, in his marvelous Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, gives us a different slant on this last phrase. He calls this an epitasis [pronounced e-PIT-a-sis], which is primarily a figure of speech found in the Greek. It means to stretch and it is an addition to the original phrase for emphasis. This means that the Pharaoh will not just initially say no to Moses, but he will continually say no, even when faced with God's mighty hand. The next verse indicates that this is God's mighty hand that we are speaking of.

God gives Moses a short explanation of the game plan. Most of us have heard the story of the Exodus, or have seen the movie, and realize that this is a bare bones summary. But this is all that Moses needs to know. Most of us, if we knew every detail of our future, could not face it. God, however, as our future unfolds, provides for us and provides the strength to move through it. God has told Moses everything that he needs to know. Ideally, the plan would be for the Jews to first go to the desert and receive instruction from God as to their next move.

"So then, I will put forth my hand and smite Egypt with all my wonders, which I will do in the midst thereof; and, after that, he will send you forth." [Ex. 3:20]

An issue brought up here is the "wonders" which God will perform. Since we are mostly acquainted with the more spectacular portions of the Bible, we seem to think that the Christian life should be fraught with miracles and signs and wonders. We should walk out our front doors and there should be a cloud in the sky indicating that we should make a left turn or a right turn. How did we ever become so foolish? Firstly, our lives our filled with supernatural activity that we will never recognize until we have passed into phase three of the Christian life. However, the kinds of signs and wonders which we associate with the Christian life did not occur on a regular basis throughout history. These things were the exception to human experience. Every thousand years or so, there might be a short period of time when there would be signs and miracles and wonders. These things all occurred when God was making an important change in the way he dealt with man. Or they would occur at a particular cross roads. When God went from dealing with mankind through all families and centered in on the race of the Jews, there were some miraculous things which occurred, but miraculous to Abraham and Sarah only, and not to the outside world. When designating exactly what that line would be, God played a significant role in that family through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The bulk of their lives, including the portion with Joseph, were not filled with miracles. After this, we find that there will be miracles on the exodus because God is not going to work through a nation (which was the natural outgrowth of the family of Abraham). There will be some miracles associated with Elijah and some unusual things which will occur in David's life. Then therewill be a host of miracles and wonders associated with our Lord Jesus Christ and the foundatin of the church (because that indicates a complete change in God's plan). However, in between those times are long periods of time where God's hand is present and fully recognizable (which it should be in our lives today) but there are a dearth of signs and miracles and wonders. [see the doctrine of signs and wonders...not finished yet!!]

In v. 22, the Jews will spoil the Egyptians. This is outdated language which does not communicate. We associate that with buying Nintendo games for a six-year-old. Here, the Jews are merely taking what is rightfully theirs for services performed while under slavery to the Egyptians. It is payment due for services rendered.

"Then I will give grace to this people in the eyes of the Egyptians; so it will come to pass that when you do go, you will not go empty [-handed] but every woman shall ask of her neighbor, and of her that live in her house, jewels [possibly, articles] of silver and jewels [possibly, articles] of gold and clothing; and you will put them upon your sons and upon our daughters; so shall you recover [or, take] from the Egyptians." [Ex. 3:21-22]

We first must deal with the specific words in v. 22; then we can handle the interpretation. The KJV translates the word shâ’al (ל ַא ָש) [pronounced shaw-AL] as borrow. It does not mean that; it means to ask, to inquire. It is in the Qal perfect, meaning that once they ask and once they leave, that is it. They have worked as faithful slaves on behalf of these Egyptians and for these Egyptians for over a century. The word often translated spoil or plunder is nâtsal (ל ַצ ָנ) [pronounced naw-TSAL] and it means to snatch away (in a good or a bad sense) and it is often translated pluck, preserve, deliver, recover, rescue, save. Here, recover contextually fits; although take is a reasonable translation also. This is in the Piel perfect, which is a completed action and the Piel stem is intensive. At that point in time, the plagues upon Egypt and the circumstances surrounding their leaving will be very intense.

The Jews have worked for years under the hands of the Egyptians and have produced and built and slaved for the country as a whole and for individual families. God has allowed that and has not said anything about the evils of slavery. However, it is now time for the Jews to become established and God will see to it that they are paid for what they have done. The amount of compensation that they will receive will be small compared to what they have done on behalf of Egypt; but it will be a beginning. When the salves were freed here in the United States, every slave-owner should have given that slave some seed money or some land or something with which to begin a life. We will see in Ex. 12:33 that the Egyptians wanted the Jews to leave, as they were afraid of the dire consequences if they remained. This is one of the few places in the Bible where it is implied that there is a price for keeping slaves and that the Egyptians did owe the Israelites something for their years of slavery.

We may wonder why the Jews needed any kind of jewelry in their circumstances; it was an Oriental custom to wear fine jewelry when going to a sacred festival. This way they did not displease the deities. It is also common for us today to dress up for Sunday church. However, this jewelry and the like was payment for services rendered.

You may have certainly noticed the poor place in which this chapter got divided from chapter 4. Moses continues speaking to God in Ex. 4:1 and God comiques speaking to and being patient with Moses. There should have not have been a chapter break until between vv. 19 & 20 of Ex. 4.

Introduction: As we have noted, the chapter breaks are not inspired and this is one example which substantiates that. We are still observing the conversation between Moses and Jesus Christ. Chapter 3 should have been extended to Ex. 4:17, which is the end of the conversation between Jesus Christ and Moses and chapter 4 should have begun here, when Moses takes his family and returns to Egypt. During this return, Moses is required to circumcise his children (who are grown men now) and this duty is relegated to his wife, who finds the experience less than enjoyable. This portion of God's Word is amusing because we have the very bitchy opinion of the wife of Moses given to the man who would lead two million Jews out of Egypt. We will also have the opportunity to meet Moses' brother Aaron.

Moses is still not going for it. He voices another objection: In Ex. 3:18, God has told Moses that the people will listen to him. Still, he objects.

Then Moses responded, and he said, "And look [lit., lo], they will not believe me, neither [will they] listen to my voice; for they will say 'Yahweh has not appeared to you.'" [Ex. 4:1]

Moses is taken aback by all of this. He has no idea how he can pull this off. He does not see himself as a messenger of God but, at this point in time, can only see this from the human viewpoint. He would just be some fool from the Midian desert who comes to the people of Israel alledging that he has spoken to God. God told Moses that the people will listen to him; Moses says that they won't. God's word is filled with promises and mandates that we often find ourselves contradicting. Whereas, it is crystal clear in the Bible that sex is allowed only on the playing field of marriage between a man and a woman and not until after the marriage, how many Christians adhere to this? Here is one place where you have the opportunity to compare yourself to one of the greatest men who ever lived. God said one thing; Moses told God that He is wrong. God has given you specific mandates; you have told God that He is wrong. Some people have no concept of how inconsequential their opinion is. As a young person, one of the very few areas where my viewpoint lined up with God's was with respect to school. During my tenure at high school, the latest thinking was to ask us students how we felt about this issue or that. I personally was quite uncomfortable with this; I was going to school in order to gain the knowledge to someday have an opinion and I did not have enough information at that time to have an opinion on those things I was expected to have an opinion on. How arrogant we are to have any opinion which is in opposition to God. How much smaller it makes us appear. However, luckily for Moses, God will entertain Moses' concern.

And Yahweh said to him, "What is this in your hand?" And he said, "A staff." Then said he, "Cast it to the earth." And he cast it to the earth and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from the face thereof. [Ex. 4:2-3]

As Scofield points out, a staff or rod, in Scripture, is often indicative of power and authority (Psalm 2:9 11-:2 Rev. 2:27). Cast down (that is, held in the carnal,earthly realm, it becomes a serpent striking fear in the hearts of all those under it. Taken up by the man of God, it becomes a rod of God (Ex. 4:20).

What exactly was extent at that time in terms of the Scriptures, we do not know; and we know even less about what Scriptures Moses was familiar with. Very possibly a prototype Genesis (from which Moses got his information) existed and possibly Job, but we have no indication that Moses had access to either of those books at this time. Therefore, his primary source of revelation came directly from God. Today, our primariy source of revelation (99.99999%) comes from the written word. When someone tells me that God has spoken to them or has spoken to their heart or has let them know something, I personally have serious doubts in this area. If we are filled with His Word and filled with the Spirit, we do not require a cloud overhead telling us should we make a right or a left turn. However, at this time, there was very little if any written revelation. There certainly was a system of sacrifice, which taught salvation and rebound (definitely the former and very likely the latter). Information about what has happened in history and God's relationship to man over the previous 1000 years or so has been passed down orally. Moses' father-in-law has certainly passed on to Moses whatever he knew and Moses has experienced some growth. As unusual as this might sound, it is important to realize that we have the opportunity to know more and have an impact equal to Moses in God's history because we have the entire Word of God and the opportunity to know the entire Word of God. Moses is speaking directly, face-to-face with the living God, Jesus Christ, and he is telling Him, "I don't know; I don't think Your idea is going to work. I think that Your plan has several flaws." Because of the lack of divine revelation in Moses' soul God will have to work with Moses using some signs and wonders. Afterwards, as Moses becomes further and further entrenched in His Word (this will be by divine revelation and by writing God's Word) there will be fewer and fewer signs for Moses himself. However, there will be a great many signs for the children of Israel.

Back to the passage itself; God did not ask Moses what was in his hand because God was not sure. He asked Moses so that Moses would have no doubt in his mind as to what he was holding. The miracle which ws performed was nothing. It was a very small thing for God to do. The less that we require in the way of miracles, the better off we are. Miracles and wonders do not ground one in the faith. Similarly, Christian apologetics, although they have their place, do not appreciably cause one to grow. Moses will in later life not hearken back to this miracle and find strength and power in it. This miracle was good for a few hours; or, at best, a few days.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Put forth your hand and take it by its tail."—so he put forth his hand and laid hold of it and it became a staff in his hand— "that they may believe that Yahweh, God of their fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, has appeared to you." [Ex. 4:4–5]

God is performing some minor miracles for Moses which will do two things: (1) it will give Moses a place to temporarily place his faith until he becomes more inculcated with God's Word; and (2) it shows Moses what miracles he will be capable of when he meets with his people, the Jews. This way, just in case they do not believe him, Moses will realize that there are certain things that he can do by way of miracles to impress them. Moses is concerned first of all that the Jews will not believe him (Ex. 4:1); and God performs this miracle so that he will see what he is capable of doing before his own people the Jews. These same miracles will also be performed for the Egyptian Pharaoh. As we will see, the elders of the Jews accepted Moses immediately (Ex. 4:31) and these signs were used more extensively later (Ex. 7:8–13).

Then said Yahweh to him, yet again, "Bring, if you would, your hand into your bosom." So he brought his hand into his bosom, and took it out and lo, his hand was leprous, like snow. And He said, "Put your hand back into your bosom." And he put back his hand into his bosom and lo, it had come again, like his own flesh. [Ex. 4:6-7]

As I learned many years ago, the heart is what we are and the hand is what we do as a result of what we are. Moses had both a corrupt and an honorable heart; when he put his hand near his heart and took it out, what was revealed was his dishonorable, leprous heart; a heart filled with excuses and negative voliton. However, Moses was also saved and he did have some doctrine. So when he put his hand back inside his cloak (or shirt) it came out whole again. A passage in the New Testament which deals with this issue would be Luke 6:43-45.

Again, these are just miracles which are done to impress Moses enough to give him the courage to do what God has told him to do. As amazing as it may seem, this will not be enough to convince Moses to go ahead with God's plan. He has had some training, but, as we have noted, this training has been with a very small amount of Scripture. Moses will, when he receives God's Word on the Mount Sinai, become much more grounded and that will prepare him for the forty years of wandering in the desert with a bunch of spiritual degenerates.

"Thus it shall come to pass: if they will not believe you nor hearken to the voice of the first sign, then will they believe the voice of the next sign. And it shall come to pass if they will not believe even thoese two signs nor hearken to your voice, then shall you take of the water of the river and pour it out on the dry land; and the water which you have taken from the river shall certainly become blood on the dry land." [Ex. 4:8-9]

God is telling Moses that there is a backup plan to the backup plan. Moses is still thinking about the elders of Israel beliving him and God is giving Moses the contingency plan when Pharaoh refuses to let the people go. God is a couple steps ahead of Moses. God knows what He is doing and will perform whatever miracles need to be performed in order to accomplish His purposes. Still, Moses has another objection. Moses is a very bright man and can come up with a lot of objections.

The Moses said to Yahweh, "Pardon, O My Lord, [but] I am not an eloquent man [lit., a man of words]; neither, heretofore, nor since You have spoken to your servant, for heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue am I." [Ex. 4:10]

Moses is thinking of excuses why he cannot participate as quickly as he possibly can. It does not occur to him to just trust God and go with God's program. So Moses thinks about this—even though he can perform a couple of miracles, he still has to speak to the men of Israel and he is not accustomed to public speaking. He may have had some training in this decades ago, but he has never had to put it into practice.

Then Yahweh said to him, "Who appointed a mouth for man or who appointed him to be dumb or deaf or seeing or blind. Is it not I, Yahweh?" [Ex. 4:11]

This is not an excuse to God. God has chosen Moses. It is God who has decided who can speak and who cannot. This is not Moses' prerogative to second guess what God has provided for him.

"Now therefore, go, and I will be with your mouth so will I direct you, what you will speak." [Ex. 4:12]

Yahweh has made it quite clear that Moses has a mouth (by divine design) and that God will tell him what to say. What more could he expect? Jesus Christ told His disciples the same thing fifteen hundred years later. "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore, be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you shall even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not become anxious about how or what you will speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you are to speak. For it is not you who is speaking but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." (Matt 10:16-20; also see Mark 13:11 Luke 21:12-17).

This verse has been taken out of context and it cannot be claimed by believers in lieu of learning God's Word. They believe that when the time comes, we will just open our mouths and God will just speak for us. God chose the disciples who were, for the most part, spiritually weak. Jesus Christ told them time and time again about the cross and they later remembered that when writing Scripture, but did not when the time came. Jesus Christ knew when he spoke these words to them that they were for all intents and purposes, without resources. Under circumstances of pressure; the eleven disciples would fall apart. He therefore promised them that they would be able to communicate His Word as they should be able to even under pressure. Most, if not all of the disciples, would develop the doctrinal resources in their souls and be able to speak God's Word under tremendous pressure through the power of the Holy Spirit to the courts and rulers that they will be brought before. We, ourselves, the entire Word of God and the ability to grasp its meaning and intention. We claim such a promise in cognizance, not in ignorance. God can and does prepare us to a point where we are not robots but our souls take an active part in what we say and think. This is certainly not a full exposition of these three passages, which actually were spoken on two occasions, the first time spoken to all the disciples as a near prophecy, and the second time as a near and far prophecy said to only certain Apostles.

In this context, Moses was still coming up with excuses and God was answering those excuses. God has a plan for our lives and we should fall into this plan willingly. It is not some obscure maze that we have to continually pray about and ask for miracles to direct us. In Moses' case, God spoke to him directly because (1) there was a dearth of Scripture and, (2) because God had an extremely important and individual job for Moses to do. Once we learn some doctrine, what God wants us to do is often too clear; and we, due to negative voliton and not due to ignorance, will choose against His plan.

And he said, "Pardon, O my Lord, send [your message], if you would please, by the hand of him whom you will send." [Ex. 4:13]

Moses is saying, "Please, if you would, send someone else." The hand is the agency by which something is done. Whereas this verse literally reads: "And he [Moses] said, O Lord, send I pray you by the hand You will send." In other words, accomplish Your work through any agency except me. God has all the patience in the world; a thousand years is as a day to Him. Also, God does not have anger as an emotion. The next verse is put in terms of language of accommodation. It is put on a level which we can understand. At this point in time, even we should start becoming impatient with Moses.

Then the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Moses, and He said, "Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he is certainly able to speak [lit., in speaking, he can speak]. Moreover, also, I see [lit., lo], he himself is coming forth to meet you as surely as he sees you, so sure will he rejoice in his heart." [Ex. 4:14]

God knew in eternity past that there was no one else for this job other than Moses. He was the perfect person to perform these miracles and to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. He was also aware that Moses would refuse to lead the children of Israel and that Moses would refuse to stand up to Pharaoh. Moses needs someone there to hold his hand. So God provided Aaron, the brother of Moses, in eternity past. The way that this is expressed is humorous: "What about your brother, Aaron? I know that he can speak." Actually, the Hebrew word is our common word for speaking: dâbar (ר ַב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAR]. This is first found in the Piel infinitive absolute and then in the Piel imperfect. The double use of this word means that Aaron can certain speak. Normally the Piel tense would stand out as being quite intensive, but dâbar is found in the Piel much more often than in any other stem. We will see that, although Aaron is enthusiastic and eager to please, he does not have what it takes to stand up to Pharaoh or to lead the Israelites. As Thieme paints this picture, Aaron will be the spokesman for Moses until Moses finally gets tired of listening to him handle it the wrong way so that he finally pushes Aaron aside and speaks directly to Pharaoh.

There is an important shadow here. Aaron becomes a part of God’s plan by virtue of the fact that he is related to Moses. There are a number of greater men in Israel than Aaron—however, only Aaron is the brother of Moses. Aaron will become a High Priest and all those who are descended from him will be priests or high priests. They are so designated because of their relationship to Aaron and he is so placed in God’s plan because of his relationship to Moses. Here’s the deal: we have nothing whatsoever to recommend ourselves to God. We are in absolute opposition to God. We should expect condemnation. However, because we are in Christ—because of our relationship to Christ Jesus, we are accepted in the beloved. In fact, we are a nation of priests. What we have is a parallel situation. Moses is representative of Christ—the Great Prophet Who would come. Aaron has a place in God’s plan, as do all of his descendants, simply because of his relationship to Moses. We have our place in God’s plan simply because of our relationship to Christ Jesus. We have nothing else to recommend us.

"Then you will speak to him and will put the words in his mouth, so I will direct you [as to] what you will do. And he will speak for you unto the people; and is shall come to pass that he will become a spokesman [lit., a mouth] on your behalf [lit., for you] and you will become to him as God." [Ex. 4:15–16]

V. 16 may not be translated completely correctly. We have the absolute status quo verb to be hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] used twice here. It is first in the Qal perfect with a subject which is not altogether clear; and it immediately follows in the Qal imperfect. We could also translate this as: he has become and he will continue to become a mouth on your behalf and you will be to him as God.

So God will speak to Moses; Moses will tell Aaron what to say, and Aaron will speak to Pharaoh, on behalf of God, to Whom he has never spoken. What Moses says to Aaron will be just as though God is speaking to Aaron—therefore, Moses will become as God to Aaron. Although this is God's second choice as to how things should be done; He does allow Moses his free will. What God would prefer (and it will eventually occur this way) is that there will be one man between Himself and Pharaoh; one mediator speaking God's Word to Pharaoh. That sets up a better shadow image of Jesus Christ revealing God to man and the perfect God-man, the true mediator between God and man. Throughout the Old Testament, God will continually use spiritual men who both act in the process of His plan and also act as a shadow of good things to come.

"And this staff, take it in your hand; with this you shall perform the signs." [Ex. 4:17]

When Moses' mother, the queen, told him of his background, she possibly told him about his real family. There is no indicaton that they had ever met prior to this. Very likely, his birth-mother kept in touch with the queen and would inquire as to Moses and his life. Further, his birth mother, when the time was proper, told the rest of the family that they had a brother, God certainly knew Moses' entire background and at this point, we do not know how much about it that Moses knew. As i mentioned earlier, it is my theory (yet, at this point it is just a theory) that Moses did not fully grasp his familial background until a day or so before he went out among the Jews to observe them in slavery. He behaved as if he was seeing them in a new light, although, at forty years old, he could remember Jews being slaves under Egypt and under the palace for his entire life. He just did not realize that was an Israelite. When he went out to observe the Jews, he may have been told more details of his family and perhaps not. Since no intention of meeting his family was mentioned and since he goes out into the Jews twice without a mention of his family, it is my educated guess that he did not know any of the specifics of his birth at that time. However, his first visit out to the Jews in Ex. 2:11 mentions the word brothers twice; indicating that he knew at least at this time that these were his relatives by birth. Ex. 4:14 and the following verse indicates that Moses at this time knew who his family was.

So Moses went and returned to Jethro, his father-in-law, and said to him, "Let me go, I ask of you, and return to my family who are in Egypt, that I may see whether they are yet alive." And Jethro said to Moses, "Go and prosper." [Ex. 4:18]

I've taken some liberties with the translation; Moses asks to return and see his brethren. Also, I ask of you is actually I pray thee. It is interesting to note that Moses says nothing of his encounter with the burning bush to his own father-in-law, who is a priest. A guess on my part is that Moses will go half-heartedly to Egypt, first to see his family, and then he might go and speak to Pharaoh. He is still possibly going to play this by ear. Notice that this parting is much better than the one between Labon and Jacob. Jethro recognizes the importance of Moses returning to Egypt to see his family and does not do anything untoward to make him stay.

And Yahweh said to Moses in Midian, "Go and return to Egypt, for all the men are dead who were seeking your life." [Ex. 4:19]

How God spoke to Moses this second time, we do not know. This could have been a reference to Mount Horeb because that is in Midian, near the border of Midian and Egypt. If God did come to Moses a second time, then we are given no specifics whether He came in a dream or a vision or as another phenomenah of nature. Moses left because his life was in danger and now he can return since the statute of limitations has run out (which, in this case, those who remembered the crime and intended to prosecute Moses had died).

So Moses took his wife and his sons and caused them to ride upon the donkey, and he returned to the land of Egypt; and Moses took the staff of God in his hand. [Ex. 4:20]

This staff was the staff which Moses had used for years to walk with and to herd his cattle and sheep with. However, when God caused it to change into a serpent and back into a staff, it became the staff of God.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "When you go to return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your hand; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." [Ex. 4:21]

Moses likely recorded all of this years later. It is possible that he recorded his conversation with God at Mount Horeb, and as he records his steps from Midian to Egypt, he recalls other things which God had said to him. It is also possible that God had again appeared to Moses, possibly several times, reassuring Moses in little steps.

Then we come to the place which most people find confusing. God hardens Pharaoh's heart. The only people not confused by this are the hyper-Calvinists who do not believe that we have the free will to act apart from God's plan. I should rephrase that. When it comes to salvation, there are the chosen and there are the damned. The chosen believe in God because God turned on their positive volition. They see faith as being the gift of God in Eph. 2:8,9

. We are all corrupt; none of us has enough positive volition to chose God; and if we did, that would be works. That would imply some goodness in us which we do not possess. God foreknew those He would save—those who's voliton He would turn to positive—and therefore, Christ only died for those people. God is glorified in all of this. Therefore, the hyper-Calvinists see nothing unusual about God "hardening Pharaoh's heart." The problem with their position is this:

3. Therefore, why would God have to do anything to Pharaoh's heart? It would be natural for Pharaoh to react negatively toward God's plan in the first place.

5. It is illogical for God to do inside Pharaoh what he would do out of his own depravity.

When we get further along in this, we will examine God hardening Pharaoh's heart. At some point in time, we will cover the Doctrine of The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart. A problem with the Calvinists, as it is with many theological positions, is this "all or nothing" mindset. On the one hand we have the Armenian way of thinking, which emphasizes man's free will as over ruling God's sovereignty; and the hyper-Calvinists on the other hand seeing God's sovereignty as overruling man's free will. Furthermore, they see man's free will as being illusionary at best when it comes to things spiritual. The result of both positions are dangerous. The Armenian believes that everything depends upon them. However, everything depends upon God. The hyper-Calvinists become fatalistic. However, the Bible asserts our free will throughout the Old and New Testaments. Both positions are theological ones and it may not seem to be that important to the reader, but that theological position seeps into their Christian life and into their way of thinking. Their participation in God's plan is confused and contradictory. Their motivation is confused and their actions are confused. However, when the time is right, we will straighten all of this out.

What might help to allay your troubles temporarily is that the Hebrew sometime shas a verb denoting action which expresses not the doing of the thing, but the permission to do so

. Bullinger points out several passages where this is done: Gen. 31:7 Jer. 4:10 Ezek. 14:9 20:25 etc. God is not forcing Pharaoh to harden his heart, but He is permitting him to do so. More of that later.

"Then shall you say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says Yahweh, My Son—my firstborn—is Israel. Therefore, I say to you, let my son go that he may serve me But, if you refuse to let him go, behold, I am going to slay your son, your firstborn.'" [Ex. 4:22-23]

Whether God is appearing to Moses on several different occasions or whether Moses is recalling these things to his mind as he sets off toward Egypt, the implication is clear: Moses, on this trip, is thinking doctrine and is being exposed to doctrine. Doctrine is God's Word and Moses has doctrine now pervading his soul. This is the only way to approach one's spiritual service. God has given Moses the overview of what will occur (the Pharaoh will ot listen to Moses) and what the final ultimatum to the Pharaoh will be. the death of the first born.

Under Egyptian bondage, it is possible that circumcision among the Israelites had been neglected by some (however, not by Moses' parents because his adoptive mother recognized that he was a Hebrew immediately in Ex. 2:6). We do know, however, that Moses did neglect the circumcision of his own children. This is one of the things which sets the Israelites apart from surrounding heathen. Because "sons" is in the plural in v. 20, we know that Moses had two or more sons; and because "son" is in the singular in v. 25 that we have two possible scenarios: (1) Moses had all of his sons circumcised until the last one which his wife overruled; or (2) Moses did not have any of his children circumcised, and when cutting off the foreskin of the last son, his wife threw a tantrum. It is possible that Moses had suggested circumcision before but had been overruled by his wife; or it is possible that he never took this stand. Whatever the case, not all of his children were circumcised. [See the Doctrine of Circumcision--not finished yet!!] What God will expect from Moses is an all or nothing stance. He is about to lead two million malcontents across the desert for forty years. He is about to stand in front of Pharaoh and do what is unprecedented: demand the release of two million slaves because this is God's demand. Not only is it the demand of God, but the Pharaoh will see Him as a local god; peculiar to the Israelites. Therefore, Moses cannot follow God's plan in a half-assed way.

And it came to pass on the way, in the resting place for the night that Yahweh fell upon him [Moses] and sought to kill him. [Ex. 4:24]

A son (or sons) of Moses has not been circumcised since birth. Now suddenly Moses is under the sin unto death. The sin unto death is a sin or sins or point of degeneracy when God requires the believer to be removed from this life painfully and under discipline. For the casual reader, the fact that God has come to Moses and has spoken to him on at least one occasion, and the fact that Moses finally decides to go along with God's plan, might become rather disconcerted by this verse. However, whereas Moses, a sheepherder out in the desert, apart from his people, can get by with not circumcising his son(s); Moses, the leader of the Jewish people, the instrument of God, the man to stand before Pharaoh and demand Pharaoh allow the Jews to leave—that Moses does not have the same leniency. As we move higher up in God's plan, we have more rewards, more happiness, more responsibility and the discipline becomes much more strict. We have seen men of great spiritual prominence brought down by a few acts of carnality. These men do not even have to be spiritual giants; but they are perceived by many to have a great ministry and dedication to God. On the other hand, I can think of one man in particular who stands out as a very public person whose reputation is just about unimpeachable—Billy Graham. He has had a tremendous responsibility all of his life and, with God's grace, has been equal to the task. God sees that those who are leaders in the Christian community are disciplined far more than the average Christian would be.

So Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son, and it was cast down at his feet [Moses'], and she said, "Surely, a bridegroom of blood are you to me." [Ex. 4:25]

Foreskin, surprisingly enough, is a feminine noun. Cast down is in the Hiphil stem—the passive stem—and it is in the feminine singular. This is how we properly determine the subject of this verb.

Women do not like to see their children suffer any kind of pain, no matter what. Sometimes a child is so protected from pain, that they have no concept of what the real world is like and they have totally unrealistic expectations. Zipporah is practically never mentioned in the Bible, and she is never mentioned with regards to any great spiritual thing. Moses' life was at stake and she was concerned about a small amount of pain. She has no big picture view. She has no concept of Moses' role in history. In order for two people to have a happy life together, they need to both be growing spiritually. We may not know the full implication of what she has said, but it is clear that she is unhappy with the situation and any husband knows that there is hell to pay when the little woman is unhappy (this works both ways).

So He withdrew from him. Then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood" with respect to the circumcision. [Ex. 4:26]

God fell upon Moses, or met Moses with the intention of killing him. Because Moses had not circumcised his children, and was off to lead the nation Israel out of Egypt, he found himself under the sin unto death. He delegated the responsibility of circumcising the children to his wife (it is possible that he was too sick to perform this operation—again, God has not given us all the details here). Once she had done that, God allowed Moses to recover (He withdrew from him) and Zipporah was allowed her moment of bitchiness. How embarrassing to have a husband who is the single greatest man in the Old Testament and the only thing that we remember about the wife is how pouted and bitched in the face of God's plan and the possibility of the death of her husband. What a sad memorial. We must understand that this is not an indictment against all women; this is a sad piece of commentary about one woman who did not have the foresight, the spiritual growth, the personal sense of destiny that her husband possessed.

Zipporah was under a lot of pressure here. She was raised with her family out in the desert and for the past forty or so years has lived with Moses in the desert. She certainly assumed they would live out there lives together there, so she is certainly unhappy about this trip to Egypt. Even though it is unlikely that Moses has told anyone as to why he is really going to Egypt, it is certain that she suspects that this is more than just a family reunion. This circumcision is the last straw. She had thought that this issue had been settled. She had raised her children under Dr. Spock, seeing that they experience little or no pain in their lives, therefore, she would not allow circumcision to be done; and now she has found that she has been overruled. All in all, a bad day for Zipporah (which means bird.).

This issue of complete obedience was obviously of utmost importance to God. It was important enough to put Moses under the sin unto death. He was given enough time to deal with this situation properly as the man of the house, and he did. Zipporah, just in case Moses didn't hear her the first time or receive the entire impact of her statement, she calls him a bloody bridegroom twice. Because of Zipporah's failure here, we will never hear about her again. One theologian theorized that she left Moses at this time.

And Yahweh said to Aaron, "Go your way to meet Moses, towards the desert." So he went his way and he met him in the moutain of God and kissed him. [Ex. 4:27]

Aaron was told of his brother Moses, raised in the palace. Their sister, Miriam, saw with her own eyes what had happened. All of this was kept quiet in order to preserve the life of their brother Moses. However, the time is proper and God reunites this family, speaking to Aaron and guiding both Aaron and Moses. It is not easy for one man to leave Midian with hsi family and another to leave Egypt and to meet one another in the midst of the desert. God had to guide both of them.

And Moses told Aaron all the words of Yahweh, with which He had sent him, and all the signs with which He had entrusted him. [Ex. 4:28]

God sent Moses on his way with doctrine in his soul. What God said to Moses was the Word of God—it was doctrine—and we see Moses recounting this throughout this journey. When God sends us to do His work, it is with His Word—His doctrine—in our souls; that is how we are sent. Moses also told Aaron about the signs which were his responsibility. The Hebrew word is tsâvâh (ה ָו ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-VAW or tsaw-WAW] and it means to lay charge [upon], to give charge [to], to command, to order, to place under one's authority or into one's responsibility. Entrusted is a reasonable one-word translation, if one infers duty and responsibility as a part of it. This verb is in the Piel perfect, meaning that God gave this once and for all to Moses and this was an intensive responsibility (meaning, solemn). This signs and wonders were a great responsibility to have. This is one of the reasons that Moses almost died the sin unto death.

So Moses and Aaron went their way, and gathered together all the elders of the sons of Israel. [Ex. 4:29]

The way this is written, it sounds as though Aaron did not have as much trouble with God speaking to him as Moses did. God told Aaron to go out to the desert and he did. Moses tells Aaron what God had planned for them and Moses immediately takes Moses to the elders of Israel. We don't know how quickly Aaron consented to all of this, but the text indicates that Aaron went along with all of this almost immediately. Since Moses wrote this, we will find more detail concerning his conversations with God than with Aaron's. Even though Aaron makes some serious mistakes in the future, one should not underestimate his spiritual impact. The entire Levitical priesthood began with Aaron at the head. Also, I believe that it was his influence over Moses that caused Moses to be less difficult about going through with God's plan.

This is likely the first meting between Moses and Aaron and they are about eighty years old. Israel was operating on a family, elder system of rule. We began with a family priesthood and God worked through various family members. When the populaton grew, God chose a particular race to work through. This is called the age of the patriarchs ("fathers") because their primary organization was through the elder members of the tribes. The major change to occur is that God will organize them as a nation and rule over them as their king. They will reject Jesus Christ as their king. They will, in I Samuel, reject Jesus Christ as their king and ask for a human king to lead them.

If you will recall, Moses did not want to speak and desired for God to chose someone else. God chose Aaron, knowing that Moses was by far the more powerful and dynamic speaker and leader. In speaking to the pharaoh, Moses will soon become frustrated when he listens to Aaron speak (while he ruminates that he should have said it this way and he should have said this or that, etc.). Finalty Moses will push Aaron aside and begin doing his own speaking.

And Aaron spoke all the words which Yahweh had spoken to Moses, and he did the signs before the eyes of the people. [Ex. 4:30]

It is unclear in the English and in the Hebrew as to who performed these signs—whether it was Aaron or Moses. However, it would be most likely that Moses did so that the Jews were able to understand the chain of command (from God to Moses to Aaron). Furthermore, when Moses stopped communicating through Aaron, it would be important that the elders recognized that God had spoken through Moses and had called upon Moses.

And the people believed, and when they heard that Yahweh had concerned himself with [lit., visited] the sons of Israel, and that He had looked upon their humiliation, they then bent their heads and bowed themselves down. [Ex. 4:31]

When we are in God's plan, He opens up the doors for us. Moses spent more time objecting and asking "what if" than it took for he and Aaron to talk to the elders of Israel and convince them that God had spoken to Moses and that it was time for them to leave Egypt. Prior to this time, the elders, as well as the people, were too happy with their arrangement with Egypt. They apparently had the doctrine and the blessing of God and found their right women (or men) and they had many children and the picture of the Israelites under Egypt was one of peace and prosperity and security. However, when it was time for God to take them out of Egypt, they had suffered enough pain and degradation and humiliation to desire to leave Egypt. This is not an easy thing to do, even as a slave, when you have lived under slavery all of your life. There is a lot of security involved here. People are more than willing to bargain their freedom for a little security.

Introduction: In this chapter, Moses and Aaron will go before Pharaoh. God has told Moses already that Pharaoh will not let the Jews go immediately; that signs and wonders will be required. In fact, Yahweh has told Moses that He will have to go so far as to threaten the first-born of Pharaoh (Ex. 4:23). So, as God has promised, Pharaoh does not allow the children of Israel to go (the first request would be to go to the mountains and make sacrifices to God). Chapter 5 ends with Moses complaining to God that He has brought harm to the people and that Pharaoh did not let them go.

Ex. 5:1 marks the first use in the Old Testament of the phrase, "The Lord God of Israel" (literally, "Yahweh, God of Israel"). They are now large enough to be c0nsidered a nation and God is over them. Prior to this, it was "Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Now he is the God of the nation Israel.

And afterwards, Moses and Aaron went in and said to Pharaoh, "Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, 'Let my people go that they may hold a feast to me in the desert.'" [Ex. 5:1]

The fact that Moses and Aaron could get an audience with Pharaoh is unusual enough. They come to him with the straightforward Word of God. That is the very best that we can bring to anyone. What they would like to do is châgag (ג ַג ָח) [pronounced chaw-GAG or khaw-GAG] and it means to make a pilgramage, to keep a feast, to celebrate a feast. For some reason, my remembrance from my unbeliever days emphasized the concepts of fasting but the Old Testament emphasizes feasting and celebration. God asks of Pharaoh what is reasonable: to take a few days off to journey into the desert and hold a celebration-feast on behalf of Jesus Christ.

Then Pharaoh said, "Who is Yahweh that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go? I do not know Yahweh and I will certainly not let Israel go." [Ex. 5:2]

Hearken is a marvelous Old English word for which we do not have an exact one-word equivalent in Modern English. It means to listen and to obey or to listen and to comply. The Hebrew word is the Qal imperfect of shâma‛ (ע ַמ ָש ) [pronounced shaw-MAH] and this word can mean to listen and comply (as in Gen. 3:17 16:2); it can simply mean to hear (Gen. 3:8, 10); or it can mean to hear and sympathize (Gen. 16:11 Ex. 2:24). These six passages

make it clear that we do not have the exact same implication each time.

Israel is the name of the patriarch of the Israelites and we have his name here used in such a way that it stands for all of the Israelites.

Everything is going exactly as God planned it. He told Moses to speak to the elders of Israel and then to go to Pharaoh and speak to him. God gave no indication that there would be trouble with the elders, but indicated the Pharaoh would not be so inclined. Any thinking person understands the reluctance of Pharaoh, however, a stranger coming to the Israelites and telling them theat he was going to lead them out of Egypt; that is pretty phenomenal too. The Pharaoh admits to being an unbeliever. He does not know Who Yahweh is and has no intention of turning the Jews loose. For the past century or so, it has been the practice of Egypt to have the Jews in slavery. It is difficult for anyone to see past that. After all of the years of slavery in the United States, it was difficult for the Blacks to receive proper respect; and when that respect seemed to be forthcoming, they raised a couple of generations of very degenerate blacks. However, that is an entirely different topic.

Notice too that God does not speak directly to Pharaoh. Pharaoh is an unbeliever. Whart fellowship has darkness with light? God works through a mediator, Moses (and Aaron). Moses is a believer so he has fellowship with God. Therefore, he can speak to God and God will speak to him. However, the Pharaoh does not believe in Yahweh, the God of Israel, so he cannot have any sort of fellowship with God. Moses, as a believer, can speak to God, and as a man, can speak to Pharaoh. Therefore, he will act as a mediator between God and Pharaoh. Throughout the next several chapters, God will always communicate with Moses and Moses with Pharaoh. Unbelievers do not have direct communication with God, except in one area and one area only: when God the Holy Spirit reveals the gospel to the unbeliever, the channels between him and God are opened for a short time so that the unbeliever can believe in Jesus Christ. Other than this revealing of the gospel of the unbeliever and the response of the unbeliever, there is no direct communication between God and man. Furthermore, this gospel, although revealed to the unbeliever by the Holy Spirit, is still often presented to the unbeliever by means of a believer, who represents Jesus Christ to this unbeliever.

And they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us; let us go, we ask of you, a journey of three days into the desert and sacrifice to Yahweh our God, lest He attack us with pestilence or with sword." [Ex. 5:3]

Moses and Aaron understand the issue; they have a job to do; to remove the people of Israel from Egypt. If they do not do this, it means the sin unto death to themselves and to Israel. Moses already knows first hand that if he does not obey God it will mean the sin unto death. What they are requesting is exactly what God told them to request (Ex. 3:18). However, God has made any threats to Israel. His threats are toward Egypt. Here, Aaron is adding to God's Word. He claims that if he does ot round up the Jews and haul them into the desert, then God will attack them with either sickness or with war (sword is a metonymy for war). This sounds better, but it is not what God told them to say. Prior to the exodus, God wanted the Israelites to go out into the desert and worship him and receive divine instructions there.

And the king of Egypt said to them, "Why, Moses and Aaron, are you causing the people to refrain from their labors? Get [back] to your [own] slave-labors." [Ex. 5:4]

V. 4 has the 2nd masculine plural, Hiphil imperfect of pâra‛ (ע ַר ָ) [pronounced paw-RAH] which, generally speaking, means to loose. It more properly means to let go, to let alone and in the causative stem, it means that Moses and Aaron are causing the Jews to let go of their labors. Better English is they are causing them to refrain from their labors. We have two different words for work in this verse. Ma‛ăseh (ה ∵ְַע ַמ) [pronounced mah-as-EH] and it means deed, work. Since it is in the plural and has on the 3rd person masculine singular suffix with the preposition mî (- ̣מ), which is used with verbs of separation or removal and, in that context, means from, I have translated this phrase from their labors. The 3rd person masculine singular suffix gathers Israel as a whole; we still translate that suffix as their. The second word is ç^ebâlâh (ה ָל ָב ׃ס) [pronounced seb-aw-LAWH] and it is the word used in Exodus exclusively for their slavery. The masculine form of this is a tyrannical burden and this, in the feminine, is a burden placed upon the Israelites in slavery. Slave-labors or burdens of slavery would both be good translations of ç^ebâlâh.

And Pharaoh said, "Listen, many now are the people of the land; and are you to make them rest from their labors?" [Ex. 5:5]

In v. 5, some Bible translations use the word "lo" to begin Pharaoh's statement, and others use "behold or look." All of these are acurate, but dated. The word is hên (ן ֵה) [pronounced hane], is a primitive particle which means "lo!" There is a prolongation of this particle, hinnêh (ה ֵ ̣ה) [pronounced hin-NAY], which means the same thing. We have seen it continually throughout Exodus (and the rest of the Old Testament). It is a word which grabs the listener's attention. It would be close to the translations "now listen to this" or "look here (now)" or "listen up" or "pay attention to this." The only difference is that it is a particle and not the imperitive of a verb. With this in mind, and to capture the brevity of it, I have translated this "listen." This is a freer, more idiomatic translation than a literal one, however, it sounds more modern, which should be one of the goals of any translator.

Pharaoh is totally amazed that anyone should barge into his palace and ask to let two million of his laborers rest for three days. This catches him completely off guard. God has prepared everyone for their part except Pharoah. God has allowed the pharaoh to act as he would. This is not to dissimilar to someone walking into the office of the president of Compact Computers and asking him to let his workers take a sudden paid three-day vacation. You can tell that Pharaoh doesn't even know exactly what to say. He expresses his surprise twice and says the same thing twice, with different words. If it were a part of his vocabulary, the Pharaoh would have prefaced his remarks by, "You have got to be kidding!"

He is so taken back by this ridiculous (in his eyes) request, that he decides that he needs to exert some authority and make the Israelites pay for making this kind of a request. Unforunately, up to this point in time, the Pharaoh's have added burden upon burden on the Israelites that it would be difficult to make their work any harder.

So then, Pharaoh gave command on that day to the taskmasters over the people and to their overseers, saying, "You shall not from this point on give any more straw to the people for making bricks as before. Let them go themselves to gather the straw." [Ex. 5:6–7]

Ancient Egyptian bricks were made of clay mixed with water, some with straw and some without, and then the mixture is put into a mold, 14.5–20" long, 4.5–7" thick and 6.5–8.75" wide. Once they had set, the mold was removed and they were placed in the sun to dry completely. These bricks were used in Egyptian homes, tombs, tower walls, fortresses, various buildings and for the sacred inclosures of temples. Often they would bear the imprint of the name of the king who was in power when they werre made (which helps us to date the buildings found). The Egyptians did use stones, but they were confined to temples, quays (these are docks built out into navigable waters for loading and unloading ships) and reservoirs.

Those who had ruled over the Israelites had become cruel and unrealistic. They expected far too much of the Jews. Each ruler attempted to outdo the previous one when it came to production and increasing the burdens that the Jews bore. The Jews were already under almost unbearable cruelty. This Pharaoh, even hours later, was still taken aback by Moses and Aaron walking into his palace and demanding time off for the Israelites. He decided that the Jews must have too much time on their hands for them to be concerned about having a feast to their God. Prior to this, it was the responsibility of those over them to see that straw was provided for them to make the bricks. Now they would have the added responsibility of gathering this straw themselves.

It is here that we can see how Aaron's addition to divine revelation misled Pharaoh. The Israelites would not be disciplined if they didn't go out to worship God. This was not an option given to the Israelites to decide—they were commanded to go out and worship God and Pharaoh would be under grave discipline if he did not comply. You see how the slightest change or addition to God's Word, and something entirely different is perceived. Aaron made it sound as though the Jews, during their down-time, got together and decided that they had better go worship God or He would discipline them.

Now I realize that does not put it all together for everyone, that should at least help to understand God's plan, man's sin, and our responsibilities.

"Nevertheless, the fixed number of bricks which they have been making up until now you will continue to expect from them; you will not diminish [the number required] from them; for idle they are since they are crying out, saying, 'We must go our way; we must sacrifice to our God.'" [Ex. 5:8]

In this verse we have the negative plus the Qal imperfect, 2nd masculine plural of gâra‛ (ע ַר ָ) [pronounced gaw-RAH] and it means to diminish, to restrain, to withdraw.

It is obvious to Pharaoh that these Jews have far too much time on their hands if they are sending reprsentatives to him to discuss time off for feasting. Moses should have told Pharaoh that God had come to him, Moses, and ordered him to take the people from Egypt to worship; and if Pharaoh didn't, then there would be hell to pay. It may not have had any different affect, but it would hve been more accurate than what Aaron said.

"The labor must be made heavy on the men, so that they may labor on it; and let them not pay attention to falsehoods [lit., to words of lying]." [Ex. 5:9]

We have yet another word for work in v. 9; the feminine singular of ‛ăbôdâh (ה ָדֹבְַע) [pronounced ab-o-DAWH] and it means labor, service, work. It is very similar to the Hebrew word for slave: ‛ebed (ד ∵ב ∵ע) [pronounced eh-bed]. The transliteration and the pronouciation make them sound like very different words; however, the Hebrew was written originally in all consonants and in this way they are exactly the same word except that labor has an ה (he) on the end of it. The result that Pharaoh expects to have when the labor is made heavy upon the Jews is that they may ‛âsâh (ה ָש ָע) [pronounced aw-SAWH] in it. This is a verb which goes way back to Gen. 1:7, 16, 25, 26, 31 2:2, 3, 4. It is a widely applied verb which generally means to do, to make, to make something out of something. They are given the materials to make brick; prior to this, they did not have enough time to fill so Pharaoh has added to their responsibilities. This verb is followed by a preposition with a 3rd feminine singular suffix, meaning at it, on it, in it. It refers back to labor. I did a rather free translation at this point (although many other translators have also).

The point of what Pharaoh is saying is that they have too much time on their hands if they are contemplating going out into the desert to sacrifice to their God. Because of this outrageous demand (which Pharoah sees as having come from the people as a whole; and not as having come from God), he increases their burden. Apparently there were other workers, very possibly paid Egyptians (or possibly other slaves) who provided the straw with which to make bricks. That additional task was given to the Hebrews. What was expected of them was a set number of bricks from each crew; they had apparently decided that it was easier to say, "we will now require you to produce 500 bricks where you must gather the straw for these bricks, instead of 500 bricks" rather than to increase the hours. Very likely they worked from dawn to past dusk as it was.

There were two sets of authority over the slaves: the taskmasters (who were Egyptians) and the overseers (who were Jews). Taskmaster is nâgas (ש ַג ָנ) [pronounced naw-GAS], which means to drive [an animal, workman, debtor or army]. By implication, it means to tax, tyrannize or harass. It is a verb, found here in the Qal active participle masculine plural construct. A participle acts as an adjectival noun (that is, it is a noun which often modifies another noun) or as a verbal adjective, and in the construct it is also dependent upon another noun. The noun that this word modifies is the word for people. Taskmasters of the people is a reasonable translation and the people's taskmasters is even closer in meaning. The second word is shôţêr (ר ֵתֹש) [pronounced sho-TARE], which comes from an unused primitive root word which means to write. Therefore, this means writer or scribe. However, in this context it would mean an official, a foreman, a superintendant, an overseer. Egyptian slave service was organized into levels of authority over the slaves; those who were constantly with the slaves while they did their work, seeing that everything was done as expected, and people above them who gave the directives, spot checked the work and the amount of production and reported back to Pharaoh when necessary. It is not clear from "Strong's" which word is which, but v. 10 indicates that the overseerers (or foremen or officers) were out in the field with the Jewish slaves and v. 14 indicates that these overseers were taken from the men of Israel. The Egyptians had found that it was better to set up levels of authority with the Jews themselves; that would possibly set up a buffer between the slave laborers and the taskmasters themselves. The point is that the Egyptian were very organized. They had to be. With two million slaves, they could not be haphazard about this. These were not primitive, two steps away from being cavemen civilization. Egypt was a highly organized, highly civilized nation.

Then the taskmasters [Egyptian officials] went forth among the people and their foremen [Jewish overseers] and spoke to the people, saying, "Thus proclaims Pharaoh, I am not going to give you straw, you yourselves get straw for yourselves wherever you can find [it]. Yet there has not been a diminishing of your labor [expectations] a single thing." [Ex. 5:10-11]

The proclamation is the announcement directly to the Jews that they must obtain straw for themselves by themselves. Pharaoh, with his wording of this proclamation, is rubbing it in. In five places, the Pharaoh used the word you or the second masculine plural of the verbs. This verse also tells us who did what. The taskmasters were those who were in charge of the overseers and the slaves both. When proclamations and policies came down from the king, they announced them. The overseers then heard what they were responsible to expect from the Jews. Already, their expectations had been driven to a point where the Jews were no longer content with living in Egypt. In Ex. 1:11-14, we have seen that their labors were increased, but the Jews increased also. However, in 2:23-25, we see that their slavery had become a burden and the security which they received was no longers enough to compensate for the incredible work and degredation that they had to suffer. The Pharaoh, like each preceeding Pharaoh, increased their labors again with this proclamation Having been a teacher, I would dread the beginning of each year after the legislature had met. There would always be aditional duties or changes which would make my job of teaching more and more difficult. Rarely did new legislation come down the pipe and cause us as teachers to exclaim, "This is great news." It was much worse for the Jews. Which each succeeding Pharaoh, more and more labor was imposed upon them.

As is true of all of the details in Exodus, this kind of cruelty is typcial of that inflicted on slaves in Egypt. A French Egyptologist (M. Chabas) discovered some papyrus on which a story of twelve brick-making slaves who had failed to produce what was expected of them and had their work increased as punishment. This was not from this time period nor did it involve Jews; it is just corroborating evidence of the reasonableness of this narrative.

On the walls of one spacious vault there are a series of ancient paintings which depict the life of vizier Rekhmirê of Egypt. One has him overseeing the manufacturing of bricks and the workmen who are involved are light skinned as opposed to the darker skin of the Egyptians. An overseer is saying, by the inscription, "The rod is in my hand; be not idle."

So the people dispersed themselves throughout all the land of Egypt, to gather stubble for straw; the taskmasters, meanwhile, were urgent, saying, "Complete your work quota [lit., your works], the task of a day in its day as when the straw was provided [lit., when there was straw]." [Ex. 5:12–13]

The gatherin gof straw was like a second job. These Jews already had a grueling, filled with overtime, schedule to maintain. Now they had to gather the straw and the taskmasters informed their foremen, who informed them that the quotas must remain the same. This is not unlike a factory which has laid off half of its work force, but demands the same production of those who remain. There are times that there is fat to trim; however, with the Jews, they were overworked already. What was given to them was impossible to accomplish.

Then the foremen of the sons of Israel were beaten, whom the taskmasters of Pharaoh had set over them, saying, "Wherefore, you have not completed your task for making bricks as before either yesterday or today?" [Ex. 5:14]

Those in charge of production quotas were slaves also, as we see here; and when the production quotas were not met, unlike today where a bonus might be withheld, here, they were beaten. At first, these might have seemed to be the cushiefr jobs, but they took responsibility for the crews that they managed and for the qualitiy and quantiy of their production. When production was down, they were beaten.

Then the foremen of the sons of Israel came in, saying, "Why are you doing this to your servants? No straw is given to your servants, yet bricks—they keep saying to us—make. And notice, your servants are beaten. You, therefore, a doing wrong to your people." [Ex. 5:15-16]

The last phrase of v. 16 is a bit difficult to unravel. The NASB renders it as, "...but it is the fault of your own people." The Emphasized Bible, which tends to be the most literal of all the translations says: "thou dost, therefore, wrong thy people." Owen wrote: "But the fault is in (are wrong) your own people." The difference in meaning is one rendering, The Emphasized Bible, the Pharaoh is doing wrong to his people, and, in the others, the fact that the Jews cannot produce the amount of bricks required is the fault of the Egpytian taskmasters. It is merely a conjunction, a verb and a noun. The verb is the 3rd person feminine singular, Qal perfect of châţâ’ (א ָט ָח) [pronounced khaw-TAW] and it means to miss the mark, to sin, to do wrong, to go wrong. The problem here is the 3rd person feminine singular. There is no relative noun to which this can refer. The Septuagint and the Syriac text indicate that this is in the 2nd person, masculine singular, which is a pretty strong thing to say. Even though there is no emphasis here on the word you, it takes a lot of courage to go and tell the Pharaoh that he is wrong. The last word is the word for people with a 2nd person masculine singular suffix, meaning your people. Usually, in the ancient world, in polite society, the word for servant or slave would have been used here, even if the person speaking were not a slave (see Gen. 42:10 44:16). The word used is ‛am (ם ַע) [pronounced am] and it means people, tribe, company. They have already called themselve slaves, but they present the Jews in general as the people of Pharaoh and Pharaoh is doing wrong to his own people.

The foremen (or, overseers), even though they were Jews, were given certain privileges. One of these was an audience with the Pharaoh. Even though this is a inhumane practice and it was daily becoming more so, the Egyptian Pharaoh still would hear his slaves out. The foremen were a go between the Jews as a whole and the taskmasters. They were almost like labor union representatives, except that there was no striking and no collective bargaining. What Pharaoh said was the law. However, this had gotten to a point at which the impossible was expected from the Jewish slaves. This group of foremen has come to tell the Pharaoh that the task set before them has reached the point at which it is impossible to perform.

But he said, "Idle, you are idle on this account [because] you keep saying, 'We must take our journey; we must sacrifice to Yahweh.' Now, therefore, go labor, but straw shall not be given to you; yet the expectation of bricks shall you render." [Ex. 5:17–18]

Although this Pharaoh would allow an audience form the foremen of the Jews, he was not at all reasonable. God knew this and told Moses that Pharaoh would not capitulate easily. It is in this episode that we see how unbending this Pharaoh is.

Then the overseers of the sons of Israel saw that they were in an evil [no-win] situation when it was said, "You will not diminish from your bricks, the task of a day in its day!" [Ex. 5:19]

This is not what the overseerers wanted to hear. It was not their idea to go into the desert and worship God. And although things were not great in Egypt, because of Moses and Aaron, things became even more intolerable. Very possibly they thought that they could reason with Pharaoh; explain that it was literally impossible for them to do what was expected of them. However, Pharaoh puts it back on them. Actually, not realizing it, he has put the blame back on Moses and Aaron. The Pharaoh had assumed that the Jews themselves came up with this idea of going out into the desert and worshiping God. He did not realize that this came from Yahweh to Moses and Aaron which brought this to the elders of Israel and then to the Pharaoh. God works through levels of authority.

So they fell upon Moses and upon Aaron, stationing themselves to meet them, as they came forth from Pharaoh [Ex. 5:20]

The translations sound quite different for v. 20. NASB reads: When they left Pharaoh's presence, they met Moses and Aaron as they were waiting for them. The Emphasized Bible reads: So they fell upon Moses and upon Aaron, stationing themselves to meet them,—as they came forth from Pharaoh; The verb used, pâga‛ (ע ַג ָ) [pronounced paw-GAW] means to meet, to encounter and it can imply friendly terms, an accidental encounter, or meeting with hostility. They refers to the foremen, as Moses and Aaron are direct objects here. They are described by the Niphal participle of nâtsab (ב ַצ ָנ) [pronounced naw-TSAB] which means to take a stand, to station oneself. The participle is used as an adjectival noun, describing Moses and Aaron; the Niphal is usually the passive of the Qal, but it can be used to describe an action which is in progress or development. Moses and Aaron are to be speaking to Pharaoh; not these foremen. Moses and Aaron are just standing by waiting to hear what Pharaoh said. This is followed by the Qal infinitive construct of qîr’ah (ה ַא ׃ר ̣ק) [pronounced keer-AWH] and it means to meet. The 3rd masculine plural suffix allows us to add the word them. So, instead of going right back to Pharaoh, Moses and Aaron are hiding with their tails between their legs hopong that the foremen will be able to straighten things out. They are waiting for foremen to come out to find out how things went.

And they said to them, "Yahweh, look upon you and judge in that you have made us odious [lit., you have caused our odor to be offensive] in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants, putting a sword into their hand to slay us." [Ex. 5:21]

The foremen can hardly wait to run into Moses and Aaron and give them an earful. They are extremely angry at Moses and Aaron because they have taken an intolerable situation and have made it even more intolerable. No one stops to think that God has chosen these things to occur. They are looking to place blame. The last phrase is better understood as you might as well have given them a sword to kill us with.

Very noticeable here is the incongruity of their smell being offensive to Pharaoh's eyes. This is called catachresis [pronounced CAT-a-chreee-sis] or incongruity. One word is changed for another and this is contrary to the ordinary usage and meaning of it. It draws attention to the strength of the statement. On the other hand, these men could have been so upset that they just blurted this out, barely able to think of what they were saying.

This is a shadow of things to come. Moses and Aaron would face an uphill battle with the Jews for the next forty years. The Hebrews under slavery never did quite grasp the full impact of what was occurring. They never did fully understood the importance of their freedom. This is why Moses had so much trouble with them in the desert and why God made them wander the desert until of the first generation He killed them all. These foolish overseers don't see the Pharaoh as being the one out of line, but Moses and Aaron. They are short-sighted.

And Moses returned to Yahweh and said, "Oh My Lord, why have you caused harm to this people? Why now did you send me, seeing that since I went to the Pharaoh to speak in Your Name, he has caused harm to this people and in delivering, You have not delivered Your people." [Ex. 5:22–23]

When a verb is used twice in the same breath, it places great emphasis upon the assertion or the expression. In terms of verbs, it is a superlative with respect to magnitude and gravity of the action involved. Moses did not listen carefully to God and now he claims that in God's deliverance of the Jews, he did not deliver them. This is a scathing indictment levied by Moses.

Pharaoh blames the foremen and the Jewish people; the foremen and the Jewish people blame Moses and Aaron. We don't hear from spokesman Aaron, but he certainly blamed Moses, if silently. Now Moses blames God. And gain, this is such a foolish place to end this chapter—God is about to answer Moses. However, that will wait for chapter 6.

Introduction: Chapter 6 continues the conversation between God and Moses; God promises Moses that He will bring Israel out under compulsion and Moses still complains that how will Pharaoh listen to him if the elders of Israel will not listen to him. Then there will be a sudden break in chapter 6 when the families of the patriarchs are mentioned and the conversation between the Lord and Moses will continue.

Ex. 6 God has already told Moses that Pharaoh would not listen to him the first or the second time. All of this is going just as God planned it; just as He told Moses what would happen. Moses has become as short-sighted as those who met him.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh; by a strong hand he will send them out and by a strong hand he will drive them out from his land." [Ex. 6:1]

Moses is speaking to God the Father in prayer. God the Holy Spirit will give Moses his power and strength to produce the miracles. So it will be God the Holy Spirit Who will actually cause Pharaoh to drive the Israelites out of the land. Here, it is Pharaoh who will actually drive the people out of the land; meaning he will desire for them to leave and order Moses to take them out of Egypt at the strong hand of God the Holy Spirit. The NASB translates by a strong arm as under compulsion, which is an excellent rendering of the idea. There is a preposition involved here; one which is ignored by Owen and by Zodhiates; it is the preposition b^e (׃) which is pronounced as a part of the noun and its basic meaning is in. However, the limited number of prepositions in the Hebrew wear a great many hats. This can mean among, within, into, at, by, touching, with, by means of, through. It is the latter two uses that we have here. Pharaoh will require a little encouragement at the hand of God.

And God spoke to Moses, and said to him, "I am Yahweh; I appeared therfore to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty; although by my name Yahweh was I not known to them?" [Ex 6:1-3]

V. 3 has been a source of consterntion and oddball theories for a long time. Some have wrongly theorized that because of this statement, the writer of the Exodus had not read certain portions of Genesis (therefore, he did not write it) so he wasn't aware that the name "Yahweh" had been used of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is pure drival. This, first of all, is God speaking, not the author of Exodus. God had promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the land of Canaan as an inheritance forever. He was known by several names to them (as well as to all the saints from the book of Genesis) but His identifying name has always been "Yahweh." This is the equivalent name to Jesus Christ for us. That was our Lord's name prior to the incarnation. We are enjoined to believe in Jesus Christ and they were enjoined to believe in Yahweh.

1. Moses was the writer of the books of Moses. He certainly used source material to write the book of Genesis, which he edited under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The five books of Moses are originally presented as one book. The only portion that Moses did not write was the account of his death; this was likely added by Joshua.

2. To know is not a word which means simple knowledge; it is rarely used in that way in the Old Testament. It can refer to anything between carnal knowledge to intimate knowledge.

3. Jesus Christ is the only God and He was known to the Jews (and the saints prior to the Jews) in several ways.

4. V. 3 is rhetorical. "Was I not known to them also as Yahweh?" God is telling Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and He has now come to begin to fulfill His covenant to them.

5. As El Shaddai, God was the One who provided for all of the patriarchs needs; however, as Yahweh, there is a more personal relationship.

6. God has for the first time in Ex. 5:1 identified Himself as Yahweh Elohim, the God of Israel.

7. As Yahweh Elohim of Israel, God will now begin to fulfill the promises which He made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob some 400 years previous.

8. Another contrast between El Shaddai and Yahweh Elohim is that the Jews will now see miracles and signs unlike anything witnessed in the past 600 years. In fact, only Noah, his family, and corrupted mankind in the flood had ever seen power which was similar to the power about to be unleashed against Pharaoh of Egypt.

9. Moses is discouraged (Ex. 5:22), the elders oppose him (5:21) and Pharaoh does not take this demand seriously (5:2-9). Therefore Moses is having second thoughts about this. God is reassuring Moses that He really is who He claims to be.

10. El Shaddain, which is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word for "Almighty God," was the way in which many pre-Abrahamic saints knew Jesus Christ. It occurs thirty-one times in the book of Job (which predates the law), which is as often as the name Yahweh occurs.

11. However, Yahweh is used much more often than El Shaddain in Genesis, indicating (a) it is very likely written by the same person and (b) and "was I not also known to them as Yahweh?"

12. This question, with the negative, demands the answer, yes, You were known to them as Yahweh.

13. The point here is that Jesus Christ is one and the same God and, from this point on, He will be known to them as "Yahweh, God of Israel." The first use of this is found, as previously mentioned, in Ex. 5:1.

14. The problem with situations like this, is that liberal theologians and Biblical critics begin with a certain mindset, get an hypothesis from the barest of evidence, and then try to justify this hypothesis by any and all means possible. The mindset involved here, in one case, is that the Pentateuch was composed by four different authors, woven from tales of old, long after the death of Moses and that this is one of the authors who is unaware of the other three, who has not used Yahweh in his portion of Genesis (I think that I am getting that theory straight).

15. There is nothing wrong with a search for the truth about the interpretation of a passage or a concept. Sometimes hypotheses must be tried and then examined from all angles of Scripture. Every good teacher of God's Word will do this. However, when we come across an interpretation or a translation which is not mainstream, so to speak, then we had better investigate it quite thoroughly before purporting it to be truth.

16. However, here the point is that God was known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as both an All-Powerful God and also as a personal God—not like the personal gods of various nations, but One Who cares about them and One Who keeps His Word.

The exodus was the primary method of evangelism for the next several centuries. It will not be easy, but it will be well-known throughout the world that God's power over Pharaoh is absolute. This standoff between the God of Israel and the Pharaoh of Egypt will have some symbolic references as well as literal. By this I mean that the plagues which God uses to glorify Himself all cut deeply into the religion and culture of Egypt. All that which is held sacred by the Egyptians will face God's wrath.

"Furthermore, I also established by covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan—even the land of their sojourning wherein they sojourned. [Ex. 6:4]

Moses must take the Jews out of Egypt and return them to the land of Canaan because God gave the land of Canaan to Abrahamn, Isaac and Jacob. He allowed them to sojourn (a temporary stay) in the land that would be an inheritance to them forever.

Furthermore, I also heard the groaning of the sons of Israel whom the Egyptians were holding [lit., holding them] in servitude; and I remember My covenant." [Ex. 6:5]

God had not forgotten His covenant and then suddenly realize that He has some Jews down there and thought, "What are they up to and what can I do?" It would seem as though God had totally forgotten about the Jews. He certainly did not. There is a perfect time table and that is what God is staying with. There is a right time for everything. God tells Moses that He continually remembers His covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

"Furthermore, say to the sons of Israel, 'I am Yahweh. Therefore, I will bring you forth from under the burdens of Egypt, and will deliver you out of their service, and will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgements'"; [Ex. 6:6]

At the end of this verse we have the word mishpâţ (ט ָ ׃ש ̣מ) [pronounced mish-PAWT] and it means verdict, whether good ro bad. It can refer to a judgement or to the actual act of deciding a case. It has other possible meanings and ramifications; however, here it is simply judgement or acts of judgment.

The Israelites must be continually reminded that God is there to take them out of their bondage to Egypt and take them to a land flowing with milk and honey. In this verse we have that marvelous word redeem: gâ’al (ל ַא ָ)[pronounced gaw-AHL] and it has only been used one time before this in Gen. 48:16. Here it is used in its full and proper sense. This means to purchase something. It is unusual that this word is used here because God is not purchasing anything, per se. With force, He will remove Israel from Egypt; with a strong hand and great judgements, He will redeem His people.. However, this parallels the first advent of our Lord when he paid for our sins. We are sinners on the slave market of sin. There is no way that we can buy ourselves from our master and no way that we can purchase someone else. We are slaves—slaves to our desires, to our sin nature, and to the imputed sin from Adam. A slave cannot purchase himself from the slavery block. He must be purchased by someone outside the slave market of sin. Here, God tells the slaves Israel that he will pay for them to take them out of Egypt. At salvation, God pays for our redemption; He is the one outside the slave market of sin. He is the only one qualified to pay for our sins. Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Paul, Joseph Smith—none of them could pay for our sins; all of them were slaves, caught up in the same slave market as we. It requires someone outside the slave market to make this purchase. This verbage is used because this book is authored by God the Holy Spirit and He desires that everything points toward the future coming of Jesus Christ so that there would be no mistaking His message or His death on the cross. We will later study the Doctrine of Redemption—not finished yet.

An interesting note on the word redeem; it has a homonym in the word gâ‛al (ל ַע ָ); Gâ‛al means to reject, to defile an dis found in Ezra 6:6, Neh. 7:64 13:29, etc. Context clearly shows which is being used.

"'And I have taken you to myself for a people and I have become your God and you will know that I Yahweh am your God who brought you [or, more accurately, causing you to be brought] forth from under the burdens of Egypt.'" [Ex. 6:7]

Most translations render this verse as: And I will take you to myself for a people and will become your God and you will know that I Yahweh am your God who brought your forth from under the burdens of Egypt. The words take and become are both in the Qal perfect, 1st person singular, meaning that this is looked upon by God has completed action. He chose the Jews and took them as His people in eternity past; we observed it in time when He came to Abraham and presented the Abrahamic covenant to him. Know is in the Qal perfect, 2nd person masculine plural. Moses is to say this to the elders of Israel. This is future from this time, which is why the other verbs are translated in the future by other translators. The Hebrew does not have a past present or future tense as we know it; time must be inferred by the passage. As far as God is concerned, He took the Jews as His people from eternity past and this is a completed action. The Jews know that there was a God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (previous generations have grown and prospered under slavery, meaning they had both doctrine and their right woman). By this generation, that God seems remote and distant—it will appear to them as though God has returned to them and will take them to Himself as His people. This is a language where the past perfect and the future tense can both be expressed by the same verbs and in this situation, depending upon whether you see this verse from the God-ward side or the man-ward side, can mean either.

"'And I will bring you into the land which I lifted up my hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob and I will give it to you as an inheritance; I [am] Yahweh.'" [Ex. 6:8]

Will bring again is in the Qal perfect; from God's point of view, this is a completed action and from man's, it is still to come. Then we have an odd phrase which begins with the 1st person singular, Qal perfect of nâsâ’ (א ָש ָנ) [pronounced naw-SAW] and it means to lift up. The KJV translates this which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. However, the meaning of this phrase here has a double meaning: (1) God will raise up his hand in power and force and give it to the Israelites; and (2) the lifting of the hand is often seen as the swearing of an oath (see Gen. 14:22 Psalm 106:26 Isa. 3:7). There is no verb in the last phrase, drawing great attention to what is said.

Even though Aaron is supposed to be the spokesman and even though God has already spoken to Aaron, Moses is God's man and God speaks directly to Moses. Most of what is said here is repetitive. God has told Moses thes things already. However, God is not against repetition. Under most conditions, we need to have things repeated. We have indication of this in Deut. 6:6-9: "And these words which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart, and you will teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. And you will bind them as a sign on your hand and they will be as frontals on your forehead. And you will write them down on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." And this is repeated in Deut. 11:18-20.

And Moses spoke this unto the sons of Israel but they hearkened not to Moses through shortness of spirit and through hard service. [Ex. 6:9]

Shortness of spirit means due to discouragement, disillusionment, and despondency; also through short-sightedness. Their spiritual growth was not enough to recognize that God had chosen Moses to lead them out of Israel and that such guidance would not be easy.

Moses himself has to learn from the start that this will not be easy. The Jews, who he is going to deliver, will not listen to him; not just now, but throughout 40 years of wandering in the desert. Even though God is demonstrably with him throughout this entire ordeal, this does not mean that it will be a cakewalk. If will be much easier if Moses chooses to believe God and to do exactly as He says; but there will be continual headaches and pressures. We face the same things in our lives; even though we believe in Jesus Christ and grow in His grace and in His Word, this does not mean that all of life will be easy. There will be difficult times and it will not always appear to us as though things are falling right into line as they should. Moses is finding this out. God has a plan for his life and Moses is to follow this plan. God gives him simple, step-by-step directions and Moses needs to merely follow those directions. Our lives are not much more difficult when it comes to divine guidance. If we spend one or more hours in the Word each and every day, rebound regularly, divine guidance will be automatic rather than esoteric. When it is time for Bible class, we know that we will be in God's geographical will if we are in Bible class. While we are there, we know that we are in His directive will as long as we are in fellowship. Throughout our day, if we avoid sins, and rebound when we do sin; and plan our schedule around Bible class, divine guidance will be a cakewalk.

And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "Go in, speak to Pharaoh, king of Egypt; that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land." [Ex. 6:10–11]

God knew from eternity past that the sons of Israel would not always listen to Moses. This generation in particular happened to be an extremely obstinate generation. God had to exert a great deal of pressure upon them to get them to follow Moses. God already knows that the elders of Israel did not listen to Moses.

And Moses spoke before Yahweh saying, "Look, the sons of Israel have not listened to me; how then will Pharaoh listen, I also being of uncircumcised lips?" [Ex. 6:12]

Moses certainly went to the elders of Israel and what he said seemed to unreal to them. Shortness of spirit means discouragement, despondency and/or disheartenment. They had been exhausted and beaten down by years of slavery; slavery which had become totally unreasonable and completely tyrannical (not all slavery has to be that way). Moses does have a logical point. If the sons of Israel will not listen to him, how can he expect Pharaoh to listen to him? The word hearken means to listen and believe. I have translated it listen to move away from the King James English (similarly, I translated lo as look). Then Moses makes a remark about having uncircumcised lips. We are all thinking "well, I should hope so." The NASB gives the idiomatic translation to this: "How then will Pharaoh listen to me, seeing that I am unskilled in speech?" The New English Bible reads: "...how will Pharaoh listen to such a halting speaker as I am?" The Amplified Bible calls it "...deficient and impeded speech." That is certainly the problem when translating an idiom: do you translate what it actually says and depend upon someone to dig through the similar uses in this and other literature to arrive at what it means, or do your translate it idiomatically? We are blessed to live in an age where we can find an abundance of both kinds of translations. So you see the literal translation above and the meaning(s) below that.

Thus then did Yahweh speak to Moses and to Aaron, in fact, he gave them a mandate with regards to the sons of Israel and with regards to the Pharaoh of Egypt: to bring the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt. [Ex. 6:13]

God has told Moses and Aaron that their path in life is simple: they are to bring the children of Israel out of Egypt. That is the responsibility that God has given them. God does not give responsibility without given the means to achieve it.

This is a summary verse. So far there is no mention of God speaking to Aaron except to go and meet Moses in the desert. However, God speaks to Aaron through Moses. This summary verse is essentially a period at the end of this paragraph and this would have been a good place to begin a new chapter, since the topic changes.

These are the heads of the ancestral house: The sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron and Carmi. These are the families of Reuben. [Ex. 6:14]

In order for Moses to be a deliverer for the house of Israel, he must be of the house of Israel. What Moses does here is he demonstrates his birthright as a true Jew. He lists the first-born of Jacob and Simeon so that we know that this is the same family line; then he lists his own personal lineage.

The Jews, for centuries, were very careful about their genealogies. There are people who study their own genealogies today, but this was a national pastime for the Jews. Their race was separated from all of mankind. They are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Each one of them should be able to trace their line back to one of the twelve tribes (or twelve sons) of Jacob (Israel). Why is this in the Bible? God also remembers these whose names are recorded in His Word forever. There are great kings whose names we do not know; reigns concerning which we know practically nothing. They had their day in the sun.

Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron and Carmi are found in several genealogy lists: They are mentioned in Gen 46:9, in our present passage, in Num. 26 and I Chron. 5:3. In the second generation out in the desert, the tribe of Reuben numbered 43,730. This census probably was probably composed of adult males only. Therefore, this is quite a bit less than half of the population to come from Reuben. Num. 26:8-10 singles out Pallu and mentions only one of his ancestors, Eliah, who is the father (or possibly grandfather) of Nemuel, Dathan and Abiram, the latter two being the ones who opposed Aaron and Moses in the desert.

And the sons of Simeon: Jemuel and Jamin and Ohad and Jachin and Zohar and Shaul, the son of a Canaanitess. These are the families of Simeon. [Ex. 6:15]

Simeon's line is mentioned in basically the same passages. There seem to be the most variations in the names of Simeon's six sons. Most of the variations can be attributed to vowel points (recall that the original Hebrew was in capitals only without any vowels). Simeon's last son, Shaul, is followed more carefully than the rest. Simeon obviously had a wife and a mistress (or a second wife) at least and his last son, Shaul, was born of that woman, who was a Canaanite. The Canaanites were descended, of course, from Canaan, who was one of the sons of Ham (one of Noah's three sons). The Canaanites probably ventured the furthest from Noah (Gen. 10:18). They were a degenerate group which God had to drive out of the land (Ex. 23:28). Simeon took a Canaanite woman as a wife or a mistress and she bore him Shaul. We follow Shaul's line in I Chron. 4:24-27. Six of the several generations of Shaul are mentioned in this passage until we come to his descendent Shimei, who is mentioned probably because he is one of the most notable of this tribe who found and married his right woman and, unlike most of those in Simeon's line, had a lot of children. He had sixteen sons and six daughters. His unnamed brothers did not have any sons. The number of males in Simeon's line in the desert was only 22,200, half that of Reuben's family.

. And these are the names of the sons of Levites by their generations: [Ex. 6:16]

When Moses adds the words by their generations, we know that this line will be followed in greater detail than the previous two lines. The Levites were the priestly tribe and the tribe from which Aaron and Moses came. This line is followed in more detail in Scripture. Whereas we followed Reuben and Simeon's line for but one generation in this passage (and followed only through a few generations in other passages), the Levites are more carefully followed. They are the priestly tribe; those who represent man to God. If one is to function as a priest, he must show his ancestors to be Levites. "By their generations" indicates that there will be more detail forthcoming about this generation. Why mention Reuben and Simeon in the first place? It is proper protocol. Moses is showing respect toward them in writing this. Furthermore, it identifies him as a true Jew; he traces his heritage back to the Levi, of Israel.

Gershon and Kohath and Merari; and the years of the life of Levi were 137 years. The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shimei, by their families. And the sons of Kohath: Amram and Izhar and Hebron and Uzziel. And the years of the life of Kohath were 133

years. And the sons of Morari: Hahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites by their generations. And the sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites by their generations. [Ex. 6:17-19]

Note first of all, the ages. I know that some people are confused by the ages of people mentioned in the Old Testament. Those listed prior to the flood lived for centuries. After the flood, there were several changes. Rain became a normal event upon the earth (prior to that, water for vegetation was but a mist from out of the ground—or, more correctly, from springs, rivers and lakes). A major change, which affected the aging process was the reduced gene pool and the infestation of bacteria. Whether bacteria existed prior to the flood, we do not know; but it became more commonplace after the flood (we know this because of Noah drinking fermented grape juice; an unprecedented occurrence in the Bible). What we have seen is reduction in the age of man over the centuries (to a low of age 30 and 40 for men in the dark ages). We think that we have extended life today, but in Solomon's day, the common length of life was 70 (Ecc. ?? three score and ten). Today, although we might have people live into their first century, they are not as vigorous as Moses. Moses, in his eighties and nineties, led the children of Israel through the desert and occasionally had to knock heads together. How many eighty year old’s today could do that to a generation of degenerate thirty and forty-year-old’s?

Levi is mentioned as having three sons. This does not mean that this was the entire line; it is very possible that he had many daughters; these lines generally do not mention women. Gershon is mentioned many times in Numbers. There are not a lot of details about him but of his progeny. Kohath and Merari are also mentioned quite a number of times, primarily in genealogies. The genealogies also make several mentions of the Gershonites and the Kohathites, but rarely do we find the term Merarites (in fact, it is found only once). Numbers would be a better time to examine these lines, as this is where they are mentioned primarily.

So, then, Amram took Jochebed, the daughter of his father's brother, to himself to wife, and she bore to him Aaron and Moses

. And the years of the life of Amram were 137

. [Ex. 6:20]

This is a sudden jump from the beginning of the line to the end of the line. We already know that Moses has an older sister, Miriam, who watched as he was taken from the Nile. We were told earlier that two Levites married and bore Moses. This causes me to think that possibly Moses wrote down Ex. 1:1 through 2:22 when he was younger; before he knew any details concerning his Jewish family. At this point in time, he has met Aaron and certainly the rest of his family and now he knows them by name.

Certainly what catches everyone's eye (for those who actually read the genealogies) in the translations based upon Textus Receptus is that is that Amram marries his aunt. It is actually his paternal cousin or second cousin as per the Septuagint, Syriac and the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, we find in Num. 26:39 that she is simply a daughter of Levi, making her a Levite. This is not a problem because of the differences in the genetic pool then and now. Seth and Cain both married their sisters. Today, this would ruin the children but then there was no choice. Our genes have degenerated throughout the years, not evolved, and marrying one's relatives tends to bring out the worst in the genetic pools. This would be an incredible area of study for a Christian geneticist.

Moses and Aaron are descended through the line of Kohath (Num. 26:58-59). Jochebed is mentioned again in this reference in Numbers, and we know more about her than we do about Moses' father. There are times when the woman has he dominating influence in a family (and this is not a reference to a change of authority) and the Bible mentions this. The Numbers passage also confirms, as we know, that the Bible does not include every generation in every genealogy. There are several generations which fall between Kohath and Amram. However, I believe what Moses did was give the names of those three in his direct line whose lives bridged the gap between entrance into Israel and that day he first spoke to Pharaoh. Notice that by any version, the years of these three add up to approximately 400 years. Furthermore, this fulfills Gen. 15:16 (and this will be discussed in more detail in Ex. 12:40).

As we see in such passages as Num. 26:28–34, it is common in the Bible to list one's genealogy by naming the tribe (Levi), the clan (Kohath) and the family group (Amram). In Num. 3:27–28, the total of the Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites and Uzzielites was 8600. This would mean that the immediate family of Moses of those his age and younger would be about 2000+. This is highly unlikely (if not impossible). Even if Moses' actual father had the name Amram, this is a different Amram here. In I Chronicles we will see that the generations of slavery was at least nine or ten and not three. I Chron. 7:25 gives us at least ten linking generations between Ephraim and Joshua; Bezalel, who designed the tabernacle, was at least seven generations from Jacob (Ex. 31:2–11 I Chron. 2:1, 4–5, 9, 18–20); and Elishama, who is found in Num. 1:10 is at least nine generations removed from Jacob (I Chron. 7:22–27). This fits in rather well with the 400–430 years that the Jews spent in Egypt. It yields generations which are 43 years in length (which is about right for those times; notice that Moses married at age 40); and it squares with the population of Israel at the Exodus. There is another theory which gives us 215 years in slavery to Egypt, which follows the Septuagint reading of Ex. 12:40, but that would give us about 21 years per generation, which is too short, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to squeeze out 2,000,000 adult male Jews in 215 years from 70–75 original Jews.

And the sons of Izhar: Korah and Nepheg and Zichri. And the sons of Uzziel: Mishael and Elisheba

and Sithri. [Ex. 6:21-22]

For me, this is the most confusing could verses to be examined so far. In v. 20, we jumped from the beginning of this family to the end of it (the end of it relative to the time of writing) and then we go back to the beginning of the line but instead of examining every sons of Levi, we hone in on Kohath's line (the second born) and mention two of his sons, yet skip his middle born son, Hebron. Hebron would be an interesting study. It is mentioned as a place much more often than as a person. We find it early in Genesis (chapters 13, 23, 35 and 37) long before we have a person named Hebron our context. It is certainly possibly that the same name is a coincidence or that the child was named after the city (or the founder of the city). However, it could have been vice versa. Even though these early chapters of Genesis precede the birth of Hebron (and precede his mention by centuries), recall that the editor of Genesis was Moses, possibly near the end of his life and possibly while he was in the desert did he begin to study some these records from which he wrote or organized Genesis. We do not know; however, we have something similar to language of accommodation which can occur. The land may not have been know in the time of Genesis as the land of Hebron. However, this area is very well known during the time that Moses wrote so he may have referred to it as Hebron so that the reader could get a compass fix, as it were, on the area which he was referring to.

The writer of Chronicles slipped a couple of completely different generations together in I Chron. 6:1-2. He adds Amram to the sons of Kohath (as we have just seen, his sons were Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel). Moses did the same thing in Num. 3:19. Hebron's family is mentioned only once in I Chron. 23:19 (there is another Hebron mentioned in I Chron. 2). Why this is, I do not know exactly, but my guess is that his family were too tied to the world and were a family of failures. It is likely that they founded the city of Hebron and the land of Hebron and their glory was temporal.

And Aaron took Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon to himself to wife; and she bore to him Hadaab and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. [Ex. 6:23]

Again, we have a rare situation; a woman is mentioned, as well as the sons of Aaron. I suspect that this was put in the Bible to rub the noses of people who believe that a priest should remain unmarried. Aaron was the head of the Jewish priesthood and priest in the Old Testament had wives. Priests in the New Testament (which is every believer) had wives. So many groups of believers and church groups are completely mixed up. They cannot distinguish Israel from the church; they presume when Paul states that celibacy is the preferred state of life (because you can dedicate more of your life and time to God) that this should refer to anyone who is high up in the church or high up in spiritual things; they are confused as to what a priest is. The priesthood in the Old Testament was based upon ancestry and that requires marriage and cohabitation. There is no way to mistake this. In the New Testament, priesthood is based upon believing in Jesus Christ; we are all priests, and since the New Testament is filled with mandates concerning wives and children, that means that many of us are getting married and are going to have families.

And the sons of Korah: Assir and Elkanhan and Abiasaph

; these are the families of the Korahites. [Ex. 6:24]

Again, Moses jumps deep into the past. This is logically related to v. 21 but I do not know why Moses, in this writing, checkerboards the old and the new. And Moses will return to his present again:

And Eleazar, son of Aaron, took to himself one of the daughters of Putiel to himself to marry and she bore to him Phinehas. These are the heads of the fathers of the Levites by their families. [Ex. 6:25]

The last statement in v. 25 sums up vv. 23–25; mostly Aaron's line is examined. We will hear much more about Phinehas in Num. 25.

Surprisingly, we hear nothing of Gershom, Moses' son, or of his wife. However, if Moses is having this much trouble with following God's simple commands, then it is very likely that he has lost all support of his wife and women do have the ability to turn children against their fathers. We find out later in Ex. 18 that apparently Moses' wife and children deserted him and returned to her father in Midian. The detail with which the next few chapters of Exodus are written indicates to me that Moses, at some point in time, began to keep a running diary. Part of the reason I would take this viewpoint is the lack of the mention of his wife or children here. They are out of the picture insofar as Moses is concerned and with his wife's attitude, that is just as well.

We know, not by this short genealogy, but from others, how the Levites related to Amram, Moses' father, but we do not know that from this context. At this point in time of the narrative, not of the writing of the narrative, it is very possible that all Moses knew of his progeny was written here. However, by the listing of the ages of certain of those in his line, those who likely bridge the time between Jacob entering the land and this point in time, Moses is setting up bookends which extend throughout the 400 years of captivity of the Jews.

This [is] Aaron and Moses to whom Yahweh said, "Bring forth the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt, according to their armies." [Ex. 6:26]

This is quite a surprise here—the Jews are slaves. They have no armies. God can see into their future and when they leave Egypt, they will begin to organize themselves into fighting units. God will cause them to be grouped and organized into these military divisions because once they leave Egypt, they still have a part in God's plan which involves the destruction of the Canaanites who now occupy the promised land.

This appears to be a continuation of the conversation which was begun in Ex. 5:22 and continued through 6:13

They who were speaking to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to bring forth the sons of Israel out of Egypt—this same Moses and Aaron. [Ex. 6:27]

Rotherham points out a subtle change which I did not catch at first. In v. 26, this is the line of Aaron and Moses; however, in v. 27 this is the line of Moses and Aaron. Very similar to the change from Barnabas and Paul to Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13.

Moses is pointing out from his very abbreviated and scattered genealogy that the Moses and Aaron descended from the tribe of Levi—this is definitely who this book speaks about. That is, there is no novel or story here that is made up; Moses and Aaron are real people with a real heritage. The latter conclusion is what God the Holy Spirit would expect us to draw.

So it came to pass that on a certain day, Yahweh spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt. And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "I am Yahweh; Speak to the Pharaoh, king of Egypt, all that I am saying to you." And Moses said before [lit. to the face of] Yahweh, "Listen, I am unskilled in public speaking [lit., of uncircumcised lips]; how then will Pharaoh listen to me?" [Ex. 6:28-30]

It was always God's plan for Moses to speak directly to Pharaoh; otherwise, He would have appeared to Aaron continually and given him orders. However, Moses, although he had a royal training forty years ago, has since lived out in the desert as a shepherd and a recluse, as it were, and lacks confidence. Who does he lack confidence in? God.

It is difficult to discern whether this is a summary of what has occurred or whether this is a new meeting between God and Moses. Moses seemed to have the same complaints again and again. This seems to pick up where v. 12 (and 13) left off. The chronology was inserted because Moses is about to deliver his country Israel. He must show that he is genetically a Jew. In the books of Matthew and Luke, a very similar genealogy is followed to show that Jesus Christ also has legal and genetic claim to the throne of David.

Whoever designed the chapter breaks in Exodus was the most confused person on this earth. This is again a time when the chapter breaks right in the middle of a conversation. Whereas we are not completely positive that v. 26 picks up where v. 13 left off, it seems definite that Ex. 7:1 occurs immediately after 6:30. Perhaps this person wasn't reading or perhaps he just had bad clams for lunch. There are also verse breaks which are illogical (between vv. 10 & 11).

Vv. 10–13 Moses and Aaron appear before Pharaoh a second time/staff turned into a serpent

Introduction: Moses and Aaron have been to see Pharaoh once before. No signs or wonders were worked before him; they made a simple request which elicited Pharaoh's wrath and Pharaoh increased the workload of the Israelites significantly. In chapter 7, they will return to Pharaoh, already having been warned by God that Pharaoh would not listen to them. They speak to Pharaoh and he is stubborn, as God had promised them.The next time they confront Pharaoh, they wait for him by the bank of the Nile and turn the river to blood; still, Pharaoh will remain hardened.

It is rather peculiar where these chapter divisions occur. Obviously less than inspired. A new chapter should have begun at the end of the genealogy or after this conversation with God; but not in the middle of it.

Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Observe, I have appointed you to be God unto Pharaoh; and Aaron, your brother, shall be your prophet." [Ex. 7:1]

God has always worked through intermediate sources. He has always worked through man to deal with man. This is the relationship of the prophet and the priest; the priest represents man to God and the prophet represents God to man. God does not work in any other way. Certainly, He could have gone directly to the Pharaoh and caused the Pharaoh to let His people go. However, that just is not the way that God functions in His relatiionship to us. In our generation, he speaks to none of us directly as He did in the Old Testament, but He speaks to us through His Word and we have intermediate agencies involved. For instance, the pastor-teacher today is the one that we look to for instruction and he looks directly to the Word. We both do so under the ministry of God the Holy Spirit.

I need to cover the meaning of the word prophet in the Hebrew right here. We will cover the doctrine in Deut. 18:15. Throughout the Old Testament, God has consistently set up types; that is, a person, a series of events, something which is analogous to the person and work of Jesus Christ; something which foreshadows the first advent of our Lord. We have seen that with Abraham taking his only-begotten son to sacrifice to God—the only time God has ever required anyone to present their son to Him as a sacrificial lamb; and then, before Abraham could slit the throat of his young son Isaac, God provided for him a substitute; a scapegoat, to be sacrificed in his stead. God's preference here is to have one man between Himself and Pharaoh—that man Moses to act as a mediator; to act as a prophet. However, since Moses has weenied out on speaking directly to Pharaoh, Aaron has stepped in to speak for Moses, confusing the type. God immediately sets up a type of mediatorship, a position that our Lord Jesus Christ occupies on our behalf; the God-man Who stands between us and God. God sets up the type by appointing Moses to be God unto Pharaoh; and Aaron would act as a prophet—the man who would related God's Will to man, represented by Pharaoh. Aaron would be the Christ figure, the mediator between God and man.

What God has actually said to Moses is a bit tongue in cheek. Moses is God's preferred spokesman to Pharaoh and Moses is hemming and hawing about it. So, instead of God speaking to Moses and sending Moses to the Pharaoh and Moses speaking God's words to the Pharaoh; Moses will speak to Aaron, send Aaron to the Pharaoh, and Aaron will speak to Pharaoh. Moses will be there, just as God will be there; silently. It is actually a fairly humorous thing which God has said to Moses.

One thing whihc is extremely important in this verse (but not to the immediate context) is the use of the word prophet. We continually look back on prophets as being rather unusual men who tell their contemporaries about the future. That is not their primary function. Their primary function is that of a mouthpiece for God. God speaks to man through the prophets. Aaron will speak the words of Moses to Pharaoh. Some of the things which he informs Pharaoh of will come to pass shortly—however, he is a prophet because he is speaking on behalf of Moses.

"You will speak all that I command you and Aaron, your brother, will speak to Pharaoh and he will send the sons of Israel out of his land." [Ex. 7:2]

God specifies exactly what the duties of Moses and Aaron are. Moses is to tell Aaron each and everything that God tells Moses; then Aaron will speak to Pharaoh. Furthermore, Pharaoh will send Israel depart from Egypt. The verb used here is the Piel perfect of shâlath (ח ַל ָש) [pronounced shaw-LAHK] and it means to send, to send away. In the Piel (intensive) stem we have more of the concept of sending away. Throughout much of Exodus, this has been translated to let go. However, the Pharaoh is in command in his country and what occurs must be as a result of a mandate from Pharaoh. He will order the people to leave the land; the intensive stem carries with it the concept of a royal command or mandate. The perfect tense means completed action; Pharaoh will eventually send the people away for good; not for just a three day feast and worship service out in the desert. However, due to the perfect tense, God has to make it clear to Moses that even though Pharaoh will do this, he will not do it immediately after the next confrontation.

"But I will allow the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, and [thereby] I will [cause] to multiply the signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt." [Ex. 7:3]

Most of what I use for a translation is The Emphasized Bible and most of the changes I make are from the old English to something which is is bit more modern and readable. I do this because Rotherham is quite the literalist and it is easier to work from a translation which is accurate. However, I believe that I have found a weak point here. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart is a difficult topic to grasp, so Rotherham side-steps this issue by inserting the words "I will permit" (actually, "I will suffer..."). What he is doing is providing some interpretation here in the context of the Word, which is acceptable if the interpretation is accurate; but it is disastrous when the interpretation is inaccurate (such as the Jehovah Witnesses' translation of John 1:1-3). God says, "I will harden his heart" in the autographs; which means that we had better examine the Doctrine of the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart. What we have here is the 1st person singular, Hiphil imperfect of harden; the Hiphil is often the causative stem and the stem where the object participates in the action of the verb. In the Hebrew, the causative Hiphil does not necessarily behave like our English causative. It can include the permission to do something

. God has granted Pharaoh the power, the ability to harden his heart continually.

My exegesis of this book goes back to 1996, when I was first beginning to work out my strategy and approach. What I have done over the past 5 years is far superior to this particular work. I have covered a great many things with more depth as I have moved forward in examining the Word of God. So, in the next few chapters, we have an exegetical study of the plagues which God brought against Egypt. I did a fair but incomplete job here. What I highly recommend is, sometime during your study of these chapters that you also take a look at Psalm 105, where I take another stab at the history of Israel, which includes a more in depth analysis of these plagues and of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.

The multiplication of the signs and wonders is also in the Hiphil stem, meaning that God will cause these signs and wonders through Moses and Aaron. The perfect tense means that God is seeing this as a whole; I have inserted thereby because God is explaining to Moses that (1) Pharaoh will send the people out of Egypt; (2) Pharaoh will not do that immediately; and (3) this is the reason why—so that God can multiply His signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.

"And Pharaoh will not listen to you, so I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring forth my armies, my people, the sons of Israel, out of the land of Egypt, with great judgements." [Ex. 7:4]

God is giving Moses and Aaron a careful run through of just exactly what will happen. They will have no reason to suddenly act surprised and be perturbed because Pharaoh does not immediately acquiesce to their wishes.

And the Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh, when I have stretched forth my hand over Egypt and brought forth the sons of Israel out of their midst." [Ex. 7:5]

This is at least the sixth time that God has told Moses that He would bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt; God has told Moses almost as many times that Pharaoh would not let the people go at first. This would indicate that repetition is called for at times. In this context alone, Yahweh has told Moses that He will bring thesons of Israel out of Egypt three times. Moses was also all upset because he went to the Pharaoh and things just got worse. God has already made it clear to Moses that the Pharaoh would not listen to him. God tells Moses this again in this passage. It is a passage like this that makes me think about divine guidance. People with the least need for divine guidance, those who lack God's Word in their soul, who are immature and whose production falls somewhere between very small and nonexistent, are often concerned with divine guidance. It is a mystical experience to them or they want someone else to tell them what to do so they can pick and chose from those directives so that they can do the things that they would most like to do. If you know God's Word, you will get enough specifics to handle 90-100% of the things in your life. What Moses had to do here was clear. God spoke to him directly and repeated it three times and told him what would happen as a result of him speaking to Pharaoh. There were no surprises; no glitches.

Ao what about divine guidance when God is not right there telling you what to do? For the young or immature believer, the beginning is simple: (1) you rebound (silently name your sins to God) when you sin; (2) you attend Bible class whenever the doors are open (preferably 7 days a week) and you study your notes for an hour on the off days; and (3) you do not make any drastic changes in your life (i.e., quit your job because you don't like it there, leave your mate because he/she is an unbeliever, get married, get divorced, etc.) These are not tough directions. The worst people to explain these things to are those who have been saved for one year or ten years and they haven't grown at all. They have been out of fellowship all that time because they never knew how to regain the filling of the Spirit; or those who have been involved in self-study, most of it out of fellowship, for the past several years, and are experts in all things theological. Furthermore, they want this justified to them; particularly the last point. "Where does my Bible say that?" Paul, in writing to the carnal and immature Corinthians (I Cor. 7:26-29), told them to stay wherever they were because that would spare them a lot of trouble. Too many of us make major decisions as immature believers, the consequences of which we have to live with for the rest of our lives. Our lives would be simpllified and eased greatly if we postponed all major decisions until we experienced some growth and our course of action is crystal clear. Moses and Aaron's course in life is crystal clear.

And Moses and Aaron did as Yahweh commanded them; thus they did. Now Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh. [Ex. 7:6]

This gives us part of the time table in Moses life. Of all places, we find the timetable for Moses' life in Acts 5:19-53 spoken by Stephen, immediately prior to his death. In fact, Stephen gives us more detail about Moses's early life than Moses does. He was nursed for three months by his birth mother, raised in the palace of the Pharaoh by the Pharaoh's daughter for his youth, receiving his education there. He, up until the age of forty, had been educated in all things and he had, during this time period, accomplished a great deal as a prince ("he was mighty in word and deed"). It was at age forty, possibly because his mother, the queen, had told him of his origins, that he went out among the Jews to see the people from whence he came. Because of the genetic differences, a man of eighty in those days was as powerful as a man of thirty today. Moses, if anything, was in his prime at this age. He had recevied invaluable training in the palace for forty years, some spritual training for forty years in the desert at the hand of his father-in-law, and now it was time for him to act. What a refreshing change from those who are saved one day and two days later giving their testimoney and doing great things for God. There is nothing wrong with Christian service at an early age; just herein note that our examples from the Bible all had a great deal of training before they did anything of any true sprititual consequence. Moses is eighty and he is now, for the first time, actually beginning to do "great things for God." Immature Christians do not understand this. They are excitied, pumped up, and everyone around them is telling them to get out there and witness; pray your brains out; and study your Bible at home when you have a chance. This is the prevailing wisdom and it is wrong. If you are going to witness, make certain that you are accurate. People are saved by believing in Jesus Christ, not by asking Him into their hearts and lives. This act of praying for Jesus to come into your life or heart MIGHT indiciate positive volition, but it is not salvation; it is not saving grace. Enjoining others to do so does not necessarily bring them any closer to God. And then when you tell them to repent of their sins in order to be saved, you are giving them a list of works to do. How many new Christians think that this is the gospel (and perhaps the spiritual life): (1) ask Jesus into their hearts and (2) repent of their sins, and (3) promise God not to sin anymore. How many young Christians think that this is the spiritual life: (1) repent of the sins that they do; (2) promise God not to sin anymore; (3) try not to sin; (4) read their Bible; and (5) go to church. For how many new Chrisitans is this their concept of salvation and the psiritual life? We don't need them out there confusing everyone else in their enthusiasm. People think that by telling someone to do these things that they are witnessing and doing great things for Jesus. And just in case there is any confusion to you: you could do each and every one of those things every day for the rest of your life on list #1 and spend eternity in the lake of fire; and, as a Chistian you do do each and everyone of the things on the second list and spend eternity in heaven picking cotten on my plantation. However, this is what happens when people who do not know God's Word get out and witness. Many of them are out there witnesing as unbelievers because that is all they have ever done. Many have never believed in Jesus Christ; they have never depended upon Him alone for their salvation and their relatioinship with God. Maybe if you could undersand that there are a lot of wonderful and very religious Catholics and Mormans who lead good and moral lives, attend church regularly and believe that Jesus is an important person in their lives. They aren't necessarily saved (or unsaved, for that matter). No one has ever bothered to tell them how to become saved and they have become too religious to listen to God speaking to them in His Word. Moses was eighty years old when he spoke before Pharaoh (and he didn't even think that he was ready then). Would that we could wait on God's plan and purpose for our lives and spend some time in preparation for it.

And Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, "When Pharaoh shall speak to you saying, 'Show for yourselves a wonder,' then you will say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh; let it become a sea-serpent.'" [Ex. 7:8-9]

What the Pharaoh will say is the 2nd person plural, Qal imperitive of our old friend nâthan (ן ַת ָנ) [pronounced naw-THAN], which means to give, put, set, grant. This is followed by a preposition ל [pronounced LAW-med] and the 2nd person, masculine plural suffix; meaning to, for, in regard to, with reference to yourselves.

There are some who maintain, wit good reason, that the "sea-serpent" is a crocodile. The words in the book of Moses are so ancient, that certain of them are translated by reasonable, eduacated guesses. The crocodile was common in Egypt, a deadly symbol of power and strength and was very likely worshipped as a diety of sorts. Since there is no indication that the kind of animal that they saw was unusal, we should assume that it would be an animal common to that area; something which is reptilian (serpentine) from the sea would likely be a crocodile.

What God is doing is slowly getting Moses involved in speaking before the Pharaoh. Furthermore, God wants Pharaoh to see who has the authority. Even though it is Aaron speaking to Pharaoh, God wants Pharaoh to see that Moses is telling aaron what to do. Moses is refusing to speak before the Pharaoh because he feels as though he does not have the power and ability. He has more public speaking ability Aaron; in fact, more than almost anyone in the land of Egypt. Also, notice that the younger brother Moses will be telling older brother Aaron what to do. It is possible that Moses and Aaron understood this; but it is also possible that they were just so dumbfounded by the entire scenario that they did not realize what God was doing through them.

So Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh and did just as Yahweh had commanded; and Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a sea-serpent. [Ex. 7:10]

The literal Hebrew reads before the faces of Pharaoh. Face is in the plural, referring to the various features of the face (similar to using eyes in the plural). To us, the use here seems to be redundant, but this use is a matter of emphasis. It is similar to a magician stating I'm going to perform this illusion right before your very eyes. The sentence stands without the addition of the extra words, but it loses the great emphasis upon the fact that Pharaoh was right there, with a ring-side seat, and he observed exactly what occurred.

Notice that Aaron is performing the signs and wonders. Shy and retiring Moses wasn't quite ready for the spotlight. What is being done here at their second meeting is just to warm Pharaoh up to God's power. God moves in small steps with us prior to salvation and in spiritual growth. Prior to our believing in Jesus Christ, if we happen to be the kind of hard-heads who require a bit of encouragement, we will notice in our previous lives as unbelievers that we faced a little pressure, then we heard the gospel; we faced a little more pressure, and we heard (or thought about) the gospel again; and God would continue to raise the stakes. Being the kind of person that I was, I had to come to a point of great emotional pain before I to turn toward God. I wasn't saved right at that point in time, but God got my attention. Here, God is attempting to get Pharaoh's attention.

When raising our children, we often do the same thing. When they do something wrong, we sometimes only counsel with them; explain what they did was wrong and why and enjoin them not to do it again. The second time might bring another lecture and a scolding. The third and forth times might result in discipline, which would intensify on the fifth or sixth offense. If we can achieve favorable results in our children without beating the daylights out of them; that is the preferred method.

The Pharaoh called for the wise men and for the sorcerer-magicians. Now they too, the sacred scribes [the religious illusionists] of Egypt, with their flash [of fire], did in like manner; in fact, they cast down each man his staff and they became sea-serpents; but Aaron's staff swallowed up their staves. [Ex. 7:11-12]

The wise men are those in the Pharaoh's kingdom whose opinion he respects; who he calls upon when he runs into a problem that he is struggling with. The word translated secret arts in The Emphasized Bible and enchantments in the KJV in this passage is the Hebrew word lahaţ (ט ַה ַל) [pronounced LAH-hat]

and it actually means a flash or a bit of fire. This word is found in only one other place in the Bible: Gen. 3:24, where the angels guard the garden of Eden with lahaţ. See the Doctrine of Magicians for more information on this.

The use of the word staff in v. 12 is called an ampliatio [pronounced AM-pli-A-ti-o] which means it is an old name given to a new thing. It is a rare figure of speech found less than a half-dozen times in the Old Testament and slightly more often in the New. Aaron's staff is no longer a staff, but it is a serpent; however, God the Holy Spirit still refers to it as a staff. We have seen this one time before in Gen. 2:23 where the woman is called bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh, although she had been transformed into a woman.

The religious people in Pharaoh's court were either demon-possessed or had demonic affiliations. It has been suggested that these were small, rigid crocodiles (or other serpentine creatures), which, when cast to the ground, came to life. Others have suggested that the Egyptian cobra can be rendered immobile by applying pressure to its muscles at the nape of the neck, after it has been charmed. That has been done in Egypt in 1954 and pictures were taken of the event, according to the New Bible Dictionary. Both are reasonable possibilies, the latter more so than the former. God gave demons a certain amount of latitude in their dealings with men; at one time, enough latitude to where the demons actually cohabited with human females, forming the basis for all mythology and causing God to send a storm upon the earth and floods to wipe out this half-human, half-angelic race. It is also clear that God allowed more demon possessions during the time of our Lord walking the earth than we appear to have now (and it is possible that they were less inhibited and demonstrative in this possession). But what we have here is very likely a divine miracle followed by a demonic wonder. Compared to what will occur, this is small potatos. What we should understand from all this is that God's power if greater than demonic power. As it is expressed in the New Testament, "Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world."

Yet Pharaoh's heart was strengthened and he did not listen to them; [just] as Yahweh had said. [Ex. 7:13]

In this part of Moses' life, there are no surprises. God has told him what to expect and Pharaoh has done exactly what God told Moses that he would do. The Pharaoh saw a miracle and then saw his own religious scribes perform a similar miracle. The fact that the serpent of Moses ate the serpents of the scribes was unimportant to Pharaoh. He made his heart strong; obstinate against God. He took courage in what he was doing and in saying "no" to Moses and Aaron.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Heavy and stubborn is the heart of Pharaoh; he has refused to let the people go." [Ex. 7:14]

God does not even wait for Moses this time to give him a report as to what is going on. God tells Moses what is going on and then tells Moses what he is going to do about it. As you have seen the the doctrine of the hardness of Pharaoh's heard, the words usually translated harden are different words in vv. 13 and 14.

"Get yourself [back] to Pharaoh in the morning; in fact [lit., behold], he is coming out to the waters; therefore, you will be standing to meet him on the bank [lit. "lip"] of the river, and the staff which was turned into a serpent you will take in your hand." [Ex. 7:15]

It is possible that Moses went to God and complained that Pharaoh did not listen to them again. We don't hear from Moses. His take on things is not as important as God's viewpoint. God knew in eternity past just exactly what Pharaoh's reaction would be. Pharaoh is not so quickly going to be interestesting in meeting Moses and Aaron again (although this appears to just be Moses this time). This talk between God and Moses takes place shortly before Moses goes to meet Pharaoh, as Pharaoh is just now heading toward the Nile River. God tells Moses to nâtsab (ב ַצ ָנ) [pronounced naw-TSAB or nah-TSAV] and it means to stand, to take one's stand. It is in the Niphal perfect, 2nd masculine singular. This is a command not put in the imperative mood; the 2nd masculine singular does that for us. The Niphal perfect is the passive stem of the Qal. Moses is to walk to the NIle and God will placate them both at the right place at the right time. God has the ability to do that. This has been translated station yourself; which is a reasonable translation; it just is not literal. Moses is to continually carry this staff, which represents power and authority.

"You will say to him, 'Yahweh, God of the Hebrews, has sent me to you saying "Let My people go that they may serve me in th desert; and, point in face [lit., behold], you have not listened [to me] up until now."'" [Ex. 7:16]

Notice that Aaron is not a part of this visit. This does not mean that God does not have a plan for Aaron's life or that Aaron is just in the way. It is just that Moses is God's point man and God's authortiy. Most of this should have been done by Moses alone, but God knew that Moses would object and He chose Aaron to guide Moses to his place of leadership. Luckily (as if there were any luck in God's plan), Aaron is not the kind to try to steal the spotlight or to think of himself more highly than he ought to think. And God does have a part for Aaron in this visit to the Pharaoh; his chief ttrue purpose is the hold the hand of Moses.

"Now says Yahweh, 'Hereby you will know that I am Yahweh: Observe! I am smiting with the staff that is in my hand upon the waters that are in the river and they shall be turned to blood;'" [Ex. 7:17]

One word which is undoubtedly an Egyptian loan word to the Hebrew is y^e’ôr (רֹא ׃י) [pronounced yeh-ORE] an dit means river, channel, water, and is specifically used for the Nile and any of its trenches. It is also used for the Tigrs River in Assyria. When I lived in Sacramento, we often spoke of San Francisco as the city; here, the Egyptians speak of the Nile as the river. In this, the second miracle, the ante has been upped a little.

There is a marvelous figure of speech in vv. 16 & 17 lost in most English translations. The word kôh (הֹ) [pronounced ko] means thus, here. Its meaning is slightly modified when it is found twice in the same passage, as it is here. It is found twice in Ex. 2:12 (and translated and he turned this way and that way), Num. 11:31 (...on this side...on that side), Josh. 17:14 (...till now and till then); and in this passage: "Look, you have not listened until now"; now says the Lord, "By this you will know that I [am] the Lord..."

"'Furthermore, the fish that is in the river will die and the river shall be loathsome and the Egyptians will disdain to drink water out of the river.'" [Ex. 7:18]

This is to be the first plague, but the second wonder that Moses performs before Pharaoh. What God knows will happen is that this showdown between Moses and Pharaoh will be broadcast all over the earth and people from every land on the earth will believe in Jesus Christ because of this confrontation.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch forth your hand over the waters of Egypt; over their streams, over their rivers and over their pools, and over all the collections of water—that they might become blood—so shall there be blood in all the land or Egypt, both in [storage areas of] wood and in [storage areas of] stone.'" [Ex. 7:19]

The term collections of water is a description of the Egyptian irrigation system. The Egyptians receive precious little rain each year and when even an inch of rain occurs, it can create havok in Egypt. In fact, it would overflow almost annually during the rainy season. What the Egyptians did was to dig a large number of canals out from the Nile to (1) irrigate their crops and (2) lead to various man-made ponds and low areas to handle the run off when the Nile overflows.

We find the word vessel in the KJV, the NASB, the NRSV, and in Owen's translation; the word containers is found in the Amplified Bible; the translation wooden bowls and jars of stone is found in the NEB. A vessel is a container, which includes but is not limited to pottery containers. For instance, the poor were provided water in stone reservoirs found at the corners of the streets and elsewhere. In an area where I once lived, a neighboring community did not have a sewage system or plumbing provided for them by the city; their water for decades was delivered to these large barrels. They received substandard services due to their poverty. This is a similar situation here. Because the Egyptians did survive seven days, I believe that the vessels (or containers) spoken of were those which received their water directly from the Nile and that everything in direct contact with the Nile water turned to blood. This would exclude the carton of water sitting in the Pharaoh's refrigerator, as well as the water gotten from deep wells. Furthermore, the word for vessel k^elîy (י ̣ל ׃) [pronounced kel-EE] is not even found in this passage. There is no word for vessel in this passage; this is why it is in italics in the KJV. It is at best implied here; and storage areas for water would be a better implication.

This verse tells us that this was clearly a miracle, not a natural event of the water leeching the red dirt from the banks of the Nile or some other natural phenomenah. Not only are all the bodies of water to be turned to blood, but water which is stored anywhere which was connected to the Nile was to be turned to blood. Water is the most necessary ingredient for our survival, besides air. Remove that, and we are in a countdown to death. It is one of the rarest forms of H₂O in the universe and yet we have it in terrific abundance on this planet. How any evolutionist could realize what a rarity water is and then think that this all just happened by chance is an act of faith much greater than I have ever been able to conjure up. The command of Moses to Aaron to perform this miracle means that Moses is actively involved; just as God's command to Moses means that God is actively involved in this miracle. This is why is acceptable for God to speak of Moses in terms of performing tis miracle, as He did in v. 17.

And Moses and Aaron did so as Yahweh commanded and he lifted high the staff and smote the waters which were in the river, before the eyes of Pharaoh, and before the eyes of his servants, and all the waters which were in river were turned to blood; [Ex. 7:20]

The Egyptians, ever dependant upon the Nile river, had great reverence for it and even worshipped and deified it. It was called the father of life and the father of the gods. The Egyptians were also a very clean people who likely bathed more often than other groups in the ancient world. Their temple sacrifices were gnerally bloodless, so that the sight of the river being turned to blood and the various containers throughout the land being filled with blood was a very disgusting and unpleasant sight. However, for our God, the God of the Universe, there is no redemption without the shedding of blood.

Moses and Aaron must appear before Pharaoh and do these miracles in his sight to reveal to him the wrath of God for not agreeing to allow the people of Israel to go into the desert to worship God for three days. I know that someone is thinking that Israel left Egypt altogether; yet in this context and previous passages, the request is to go out to the desert for a few days and worship God. What if Pharaoh would have let the people do that at the very beginning? God asked of Pharaoh what was entirely reasonable; knowing full well that Pharaoh would refuse. Things will be taken to a point where the Jews become odious in the sight of the Egyptians and there would be no way that they could leave for a few days and then return to Egypt. God is forcing Pharaoh's hand, so to speak, to achieve His ultimate purpose: returning the Jews back to the land of Canaan. Wondering what would have happened if is not really an important point here. The Bible gives us enough of what really happened for us to study to not take too much time being concerned about all of the alternative things which could have occurred.

And the fish that were in the river died and the river became loathsome so that they Egyptians could not drink water out of the river. Thus it came to pass that blood was in all the land of Egypt. [Ex. 7:21]

According to my sources, the Egyptians do not collect rain water because it rains so infrequently; their spring water is hard and distasteful and wells were generally rare (why dig a well when the water is right there?). However, the Nile river is said to contain some of the sweetest water in the world. Although it is at first muddy and thick, it can be easily filtered (the Egyptians had filtering pots of white earth designed for this purpose) to yield a water as sweet as honey and sugar, as the Egyptians put it

Blood is the word given to us because we do not know exactly what happened to the river; it was not a coincidence or any work of hocus pocus; the water really did turn to blood, or some very similar chemical composition. We do not know the exact composition of the water after God changed it. Certainly, "It says blood right here" and it does; however, the Jewish language uses several words pertaining to the body which actually stand for other things; the most notably in v. 22 heart, which stands for the will and emotions and the thinking abilities of Pharaoh. Similarly, the blood need not be literal; but its smell and foul character are certain. Furthermore, because it was found in all the vessels of wood and stone, it was a miracle. The Nile river was the lifeblood of Egypt; without it, all of Egypt would die; similarly, water to the human race is our lifeblood; not only do we require it, we require it in very large amounts as a race and as individuals. One of the greatest problems that we will face when we attempt to colonize the moon (if such a thing is ever attempted) will be the lack of water and the human body's absolute need for water).

And the religious illusionists of Egypt did in like manner with their incantations, so the heart of Pharaoh was strengthened and he did not listen to them, as Yahweh spoke. [Ex. 7:22]

Both Moses and God the Holy Spirit are emphasizing that everytime that Pharaoh exhibits negative volition, God has already told us that owuld happen in advance. God's Word is fulfilled. Moses, either at this time or at least by the time he wrote this down, bean to realize that God would perform what he has told us He would do and what He predicts will come to pass. What the court magicians did is not explained, except that their "miracle" was similar. I recall in my chemistry class in high school that the teacher took a several beakers of clear liquids, mixed them, and by the adding of additional liquids, the clear liquids would turn different colors. I specifically recall a white fluid; one which began to turn white and immediately returned to clear, during the pouring of one solution into another; and one which was very blue. This was a matter of various precipitates forming due to chemically bonding; and these precipitates remaining suspended in the fluid. My guess is that these magicians did something in a similar vein to show Pharaoh that this could be done by their own power. Even though it sounds like they immitated Moses' miracle immediately (since this is the next verse) that is not necessarily the case.

To help you see what is going on in the palace of the king. For some of these plagues, the priest-magicians of the court were able to duplicate, to some degree, what Moses did. That gave the Pharaoh of Egypt a reason to doubt the power of the God of Moses. Now, what God did on a large scale, these magicians were able to duplicate on a small scale. Now, I have seen some magic tricks and I can occasionally make some guesses as to how this or that is done; however, some of it baffles me completely. What appears to be the case is, these court magicians were able to score a gig in the palace of the pharaoh by being religious and performing magic tricks. Now, it really did not matter if they were religious or not; this gig got them great living conditions, as Pharaoh apparently believed their powers to be from God, even though they were simple parlor tricks (okay, maybe they were complex parlor tricks). This was actually a very clever approach, as they did more than entertain the King of Egypt; they dispensed with whatever religious norms and standards fit with their culture or they made up some of their own. The reason this was clever is, they did more than entertain Pharaoh. If they were simply entertainers and nothing else, then they could be booted out of the palace by Pharaoh at any time on a whim. If they presented themselves as men of God, that was a whole different story. It is much more difficult for Pharaoh to dismiss them if they are men of God.

Pharaoh turned and went into his house and did not lay to heart even this. [Ex. 7:23]

We do not know the exact sequence of events here. It sounds as though the religious illusionists did this immediately after Moses and Aaron turned the water to blood, but that would have meant rounding up some water first. My guess is that Pharaoh, his heart still hardened, returned to the palace and soon thereafter, the magicians performed for him a similar miracle.

When this verse speaks of Pharaoh not laying his heart to even this; we have the negative plus the Qal perfect of shîyth (תי ̣ש ) [pronounced sheeth], which means to set, to place, to put. This use is obviously an idiom, as are all the places in the Hebrew where some type of action involves one's interior body parts. Pharaoh strengthened his heart and did not listen to them (v. 22). Water was found by digging wells near the river. Some people, when a situation occurs, think and overthink about the situation; Pharaoh was just the opposite. He gave this little or no thought. His servants saw to it that water was provided for him from these wells; he did not become introspective, he did not wonder whether this was really God speaking to him; he did not consider that he perhaps had made a mistake in this judgement. So even to this [great miracle], he did not place his heart. Most Bibles translate this idiomatically. NASB: Then Pharaoh turned and went into his house with no concern even for this. The Emphasized Bible is close with Neither appied he his heart even to this. The Amplified Bible reads: neither did he take even this to heart. One of the very best translations which is partially idiomatic and translates itinto a modern idiom is the NRSV: and he did not even take this to heart. Although we find this verb used in a number of different ways, this particular idiom is only found a couple of times in the Bible: I Sam. 4:20 II Sam. 13:20 Psalm 48:13 62:10 Prov. 22:17 27:23. Only the first reference is in the Qal perfect; the first Psalm and second Proverb references are in the Qal imperative, and the others are in the Qal imperfect.

And all the Egyptians digged all around the Nile for water to drink; for they could not drink the water in the river. And seven days were fulfilled, after Yahweh had struck the river. [Ex. 7:24–25]

On the symbolic level—which should be examined because this is a showdown between the Pharaoh and his gods and between Yahweh, the true God, not only of the Jews, but of the universe—the Nile was the lifeblood of Egypt. Egypt would not even exist if there were not the Nile running through it. It provided transportation for goods and people; it provided water for the country and crops and people. It was a life force that if removed, the country of Egypt would shrivel and die.

The end of v. 24 indicates that there was probably some water somewhere; the people had to dig wells, or some distance into the ground to locate some unpolluted water. God is not killing the Egyptians but He is making it as unpleasant as possible for them to live out their daily lives. God gave Pharaoh a lot of time to think over this crisis and then devised a plague which was even worse.

Here is where the English Bible ends chapter 7. In the Hebrew, the chapter goes along for another two verses. Whoever split the chapters up in the Hebrew had even a poorer concept of chapter division than did those who did that in the English—if that were possible.

Introduction: In chapter 8 God present Pharaoh with two more plagues: He fills the land of Egypt with frogs and insects.

What should have happened is that chapter 7 should have concluded with v. 24; between vv. 24 and 25, seven days pass; a wonderful opportunity to insert a chapter break. Seven days pass, God comes to Moses and speaks. It seems simple to know when to stop and to pick up again, but then the chapter divisions are not divinely inspired but come from the hand of man. These chapter blessings have been at once a blessing and a cursing. It is easy for us to refer back to particular verses and passages because the parameters for these have been set; this allows us to look up things quickly, to identify particular verses in lexicons, concordances, etc. On the negative side, we have hundreds of cults and thousands of misconceptions which have cropped up because verse are more commonly quoted out of context. Pastors and evangelists who have come from marvelous seminaries and Bible colleges hold to the party line, having had Biblical theology laid out for them as a series of verses. This means that they often do not take the time to evaluate these issues for themselves, which would give them a much better overall view of God's Word. Furthermore, there tends to be less verse by verse teaching from entire books in favor of topical teaching which either jumps from verse to verse or springs out (sometimes rather unnaturally) from a particular verse or passage.

The Yahweh said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus speaks Yahweh, "Release my people that they may serve me."'" [Ex. 8:1 (7:26 in the Hebrew)]

God gives Pharaoh an unconditional demand. He used the Piel imperative of shâlach (ח ַל ָש ) [pronounced shaw-LAHK] and it means to send, to send forth, to drive, to send a messenger, etc. Here, it means to release. God has not yet required Pharaoh to let the Jews go permanently, which we see in Ex. 8:27.

"'"But if you refuse to release [them], [then] watch [lit., behold], and I will strike all your country with frogs."'" [Ex. 8:2 (7:27 in the Hebrew)]

The word often trnaslated plague is the Hebrew word nâgaph (פ ַג ָנ) [pronounced naw-GAF] and it means to strike, to hit, to smite, to gore, to defeat. This verb is in the Qal active participle, meaning that God is, or will be, striking their country.

The plagues which were to come upon Egypt were a direct atack upon the country and religion of Egypt. Each plague would pit the God of the Israelites against the gods of Egypt. This would be a battle which would increase in intensity and all the surrounding countries would know that the gods of Egypt were being attacked by the God of the Jews. This battle would be so one-sided and devastating, that news about it would travel throughout the entire world. The first plague is that of the frogs.

"'"The Nile will be swarmed with frogs and they shall come up and enter into your house and into your bedroom [lit., your room of lying down] and upon your bed ; and into the homes of your servants and among your people, and into your ovens and into your kneading bowls"'" [Ex. 8:3 (7:28)]

When God restored the earth, he chose for the waters to swarm with fish; the same verb is used here when it comes to frogs. The proper subject of this sentence is the Nile, as it is in the masculine singular, as is the verb (frogs is in the feminine plural). The verb, also in the Qal perfect, indicates a completed action. Here, although it has not yet occurred, it is something which is so certain of fulfillment that it is expressed in the perfect (completed) tense.

Some translations go further to say that these frogs will be found in their couches; however, the word is miţţâh (ה ָ ̣מ) [pronounced mit-TAW] and this is a place of reclining, meaning it can be translated bed or couch. Contextually speaking, it should be bed. Notice there is a parallelism here: the frogs come into their houses, into their bedrooms, into their beds; the frogs also go into the houses of their servants, and swarm among the servants and into their ovens and kneading bowls (in the Hebrew, your is used because all of this belongs to the aristocracy, who is being addressed here).

"'"And against you and against your people and against all your servants shall climb up the frogs."'" [Ex. 8:4 (7:29)]

As in the previous verse, frogs are not the subject of this sentence; the Pharaoh and the land of Egypt are being attacked and they are the subject of both verses. The Egyptians worshipped several kinds of deities, which are found in the heavens, on the earth and in the earth. Almost any judgement at all would be easy to connect with an attack on one or more of these deities. Among these gods is a frog-headed goddess named Heka. It was offensive to her to kill frogs, putting the Egyptians in a bad spot here. This invasion of frogs is going to be not unlike a horrible invasion of cockroaches. I owned a two-bedroom, one bath apartment which was occupied by six males (I purchased this apartment intact with these tenants). After they moved out, I went over to clean up the place and to assess the damage. In the kitchen was probably the most horrible sight that I had ever seen. Not only was it filthy beyond belief, but it was covered in cockroaches. I could bring my hand down in any one area and kill 5-20 cockroaches. In any direction that I looked, I saw hundreds upon hundreds of cockroaches, in the oven and in the mixing bowls. It was one of the most grotesque things which I have ever seen in my life. This is what the Egyptians would be faced with, except this would be with frogs. A few is not so bad; and frogs are not quite as gruesom as cockroaches. However, these frogs will be everywhere they look, swarming, to where the inhabitants will not be able to so much as move wihtout killing several frogs with each step.

Some authors, particularly those who despise a God of miracles and supernatural powers, try to rationalize that this is a natural phenomenah (the frogs were unable to live in the Nile anymore, so they invaded the land). Whereas, this does have some merit; and it is possible that God prepared the frogs prior to the plague of the water being turned to blood; the narrative makes it clear that there were a greater preponderance of frogs than a natural occurance would precipitate. The population of frogs that the Egyptians will face will be beyond your imagination.

Notice that God is very clear in speaking with Pharaoh to explain what He wants and what the consequences are if Pharaoh does not comply. We face the same thing in our life all the time. I have mentioned divine guidance; it is very clear in the Bible what is right and wrong and what the consequences are. We often conveniently ignore these directives and pay the price; then ask why did God let this happen to me.

Two phenomenah which saw their origins in the sixties in the United States and their growth over the next several decades are premarital sex and living together. Certainly, these things occurred prior to sixties but, by the eighties and nineties, it became almost a given that people who became romantically invovled also had sex prior to marriage. In fact, it was not unusual to have sex before becoming romantically involved. This is entirely outside of God's plan. When it comes to lving together, I cannot tell you how many Christians that I know of who are living with their lovers, often not a Christian, without being married. The Bible is crystal clear on this topic: marriage is sacred and, as it reads, "Let the marriage bed be undefiled." If Christians totally ignore this, why should God provide them with additional divine guidance. They have ignored perhaps the most important directives in their lives; appart from salvation, rebound and doctrine; why should God give them any more direction than that? If you are living in sin right now; this is akin to marriage. Follow what it says in I Cor. "Do not seek to get married and do not seek to get divorced." Don't make any major decisions until o\you have got the a great deal of doctrine under your belt.

To digress even further; it is these two things, along with the parental neglect of our children, which has destroyed our stability in the United States. We depend upon the stable family unit in a client nation and that we do not have. That is why our children are totally out of control and why marriages cannot remain solvent—including Christian marriages.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Stretch forth you hand with your staff over the rivers, over the canals, and over the pools and [cause to] bring up the frogs upon the land of Egypt.'" [Ex. 8:5 (8:1)]

There is an interesting literary quirk here: we go directly from God speaking to Moses and God telling Moses what to tell Aaron to do, to Aaron doing that before the Pharaoh. Many movies are spliced this way to avoid repetition of dialogue. This means that Moses did exactly as God told him and...

So Aaron stretched forth his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs [lit., frog] came up and covered [or, inundated] the land of Egypt. [Ex. 8:6 (8:2)]

The water was turned to blood seven days ago. The frogs, had they teemed the waters before, would have covered the land of Egypt also seven days ago if this were a natural phenomenah. Also, what is implied, but never actually stated is that the plague of the water being turned to blood very likely lasted but seven days (see Ex. 7:25). Therefore, these frogs would not have left a Nile whose waters had been restored.

The word for covered is the Piel imperfect of kâçâh (ה ָס ָ) [pronounced kaw-SAW] and it properly means to plump, to fill up as well as to cover. It is used in one passage to mean conceal (Psalm 12:16) or to cover or to clothe in Judges 4:19 and Ezek. 16:10. The Piel stem is intensive and the imperfect tense means that they kept coming up and coming up. The sense here is to cover, to overwhelm, to inundate.

And the religious illusionists did in like manner with their incantations and brought up frogs over the land of Egypt. [Ex. 8:7 (8:3)]

Again, God has left it to our speculations as to the means by which the religious magicians accomplished this miracle. They certainly had the frogs at their disposal so they had a great deal to work with. However, as with the water being turned into blood; Pharaoh was less interested in seeing the miracles of Moses and Aaron being duplicated than he was with the removal of the effects of that miracle. In other words, Pharaoh would have been a damn sight happier had these religious magicians magically caused the frogs to disappear as opposed to causing more frogs to appear.

Then called Pharaoh for Moses and for Aaron and said, "Appeal to [or, intercede with] Yahweh, that He take away the frogs from me and from my people; and I will let the people go that they may sacrifice [lit., and they will sacrifice] to Yahweh." [Ex. 8:8 (8:4)]

The Hiphil imperative of ‛âthar (ר ַת ָע) comes from a primative root to burn incense in worship; this word means to pray, to intercede, to entreat. It is the causative stem; they are to be caused to speak to Yahweh because they have been ordered to by Pharaoh (imperative mood).

There are a couple of things to notice here. First, this time Pharaoh calls for Moses and Aaron. They do not have to go to him. He knows that, even though his court magicians/scribes can do a similar feat, that they cannot take it away and what they can do is in no way along the same magnitude as what Moses and Aaron did. He also refers to the Lord as Yahweh—God's name is glorified here by the Pharaoh. Furthermore, he has not sought to kill Moses or Aaron yet. The Pharaoh seems to recognize that they are spokesmen for our Lord and not the true cause of these plagues. Finally, this is the first time the Pharaoh gives in to Moses and Aaron. It is important to remind ourselves that Pharaoh does not want to let the Jews go nor does he respect Yahweh. He is a beaten man. He has no further inner resources and he has been backed into a corner. He wants to say "no" and defy the living God, but he no longer has the strength to do so. He is at his wit's end.

In v. 9, we have quite a difference of opinions when it comes to the translation, so I will cover the Hebrew firstr and then give a final translation. This will be the first thing that Moses says to Pharaoh, and since that would be important, we will spend a little time with the translation. NASB: "The honor is yours to tell me; when shall I entreat for you...?" (in the margin it reads: "Glory over me; when shall I entreat for you...?") Owen reads: "Be pleased to command me when I am to entreat for you..." The Emphasized Bible: "Explain thyself to me; for what time shall I make entreat for thee...?" The Amplified Bible: "Glory over me in this; dictate when I shall pray [to the Lord] for you..." NRSV: "Kindly tell me when I am to pray for you..." The Septuagint: "Appoint me a time when I shall pray for you..." (the words a time were supplied by the English translators of the Septuagint). Without even looking at the Hebrew, I can tell this is going to be tough. The word in question is the 2nd masculine sngular, Hithpael imperative of pâ’ar (ר ַא ָ) [pronounced paw-AR] and in the Qal it means to beautify, to glorify, to gleam, to boast, to embellish. The Hithpael is the reflexive of the Piel (intensive) stem. The 2nd person singular means that the subject of this verb is Pharaoh and the imperative means that this is a command. BDB points out that this is a polite address to the king, as in assume the honor. Since Moses has not spoken yet directly to Pharaoh, it would be reasonable to assume that he would not be overbearing but solicitous.

This is followed by the preposition ‛al (ל ַע) [pronounced al] which means upon, and, by application, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, on, to (towards), to (against). With the 1st person singular suffix, we will translate this, please give to (or place upon) me the honor. You see, Moses has not yet spoken to Pharaoh, so he has asked for the honor of praying to God on Pharaoh's behalf.

This is followed by the interrogative adverb of time, mâthay (י ַת ָמ) [pronounced maw-THAH-ee], which means when and it is affixed to the preposition le (׃ל) which is ignored by Strong's concordance, and only alluded to without a reference in Owen's. However, BDB takes up the slack providing us with almost ten pages of explanation. This preposition denotes direction, but not motion and with verbs it is often translated to, for, towards. It can denote locality; i.e., at, near. In relation to time (which is what we find here), it expresses concurrence (at) and not duration (in). Together, they mean at when, which explains how the translator of the Septuagint came up with the translation appoint for me a time. Sparingly, we would write, Place upon me (or give to me) the honor at when. Since Moses is being tactful and deferential, we will insert the word please. Had this been inserted by Moses, it would have been too much; it would have sounded more like sarcasm than genuine honor. However, this is a rhetorical question as Moses will answer it himself in the next verse.

In relation to the frogs, we have the preposition le (׃ל) and the Hiphil infinitive construct of kârath (ת ַר ָ) [pronounced kaw-RATH], which means to cut off, to cut down. This word has been apocopated, which is somewhat humorous—apocopated means to be cut off. That is, this is an abbreviated form of this word. The Hiphil infinitive construct is similar to out infinitive or gerund. It is a causative verbal noun. The preposition from is found twice, allowing us to translate this the causing of the cutting off of the frogs from you and from your homes. The easier route is the English word removal. Although this verb can mean to destroy and to kill and even though that will be the outcome of all this, Moses is not using this verb in that sense, because he includes the phrases from you and from your houses. We should not confuse results with what is said. Sometimes the results better inform us of what is being said; but we rely on them only when the immediate context is unclear. Here, it is clear.

And Moses said to Pharaoh, "Please place upon me [or, give to me] the honor: at what time [lit, at when] should I intercede (or, make supplication) for you and for your servants and for your people, to cause the removal of the frogs from you and from your houses; [so that] only in the river shall they remain?" [Ex. 8:9 (8:5)]

Notice what else has happened here. Moses is no longer speaking through Aaron; Moses has had direct contact with God. God has told him what to tell Aaron to do before the Pharaoh; and now Moses is speaking directly to the Pharaoh giving him directives. Moses is the dynamic speaker and he can no longer bear to speak through Aaron. Aaron still has a part to play in God's plan; and it is a place of leadership, it just is not as a spokesman for God to Pharaoh. We will later see the weakness of Aaron in the desert when Moses is on Mount Sinai. God has chosen certain people to do certain things. It was best for Moses just to go along with it from the beginning., but God foreknew what would occur and made provision for it, as He does in all of our lives.

Moses is suddenly excited by this turn of events. He did not really believe that God would cause all of this to come to pass; on the other hand, God did not give him a way to weasle out of this, so he required Aaron to go with him and to hold his hand. He did not go to God in prayer prior to this meeting—when Pharaoh called, they both rushed on over. Moses is so excited by all of this, not having a firm belief in God's power and prophecy. Moses thought about this on the way over to Pharaoh's palace. Some people just go and do things without much thought; Moses is a genius and he certainly had been ruminating about this for some time. I don't think that he gave as much thought to Pharaoh caving in like this, but when Pharaoh called for him, he certainly thought things through on the way there. This causes me to believe that his first question was given in sincere earnestness and that he laready had the answer to to answer of Pharaoh prepared. This is not a rhetorical question, per se, but it is a question to which Moses already has an answer ready for whatever Pharaoh will say; but it is phrased in such a way that it does not sound to Pharaoh like Moses already has an answer, but it sounds to Pharaoh like a simple, polite entreaty. This reveals Moses' genius in the field of public speaking. It is almost second nature to him. Translators have a difficult time with this passage because it is so steeped in inuendo and verbal parlance. Can it be a coincidence that two of the greatest men of the Bible, Paul and Moses, were both absolute geniuses in the field of language and discourse?

And he said, "By [lit., at] tomorrow." And he (Moses) said, "According to your word! That you may know that there is no one like Yahweh, our God." [Ex. 8:10 (8:6)]

At this point in man's history, each and every nation that was religious had a god or, more often than not, a pantheon of gods that they worshipped. There is only one God of the universe Who exists in three persons. God, for His own reasons, chose Israel as the nation through which He would work. Therefore, it was not enough to be sincere, to worship the god that you had been brought up with. There is one true God and that is Yahweh, God of Israel. So that Pharaoh could learn to appreciate this exclusiviity, Moses will have the mess of frogs cleaned up precisely on the day that Pharaoh requested.

"So the frogs shall depart from [or, cease to obstruct or get out of the way of] you and from your houses and from your servants and from your people; only in the river shall they remain." [Ex. 8:11 (8:7)]

What the frogs will do is the Qal perfect of çûwr (ר ס) [pronounced soor] and it has three basic meanings in the Qal stem: (1) to turn aside, to revolt, to degenerate; (2) to depart, to cease to obstruct, to get out of the way; (3) to be removed (used of lifeless things). Our second definition is the one which applies here. The perfect tense means that come tomorrow, this will be a completed action and the frogs will no longer be an issue to the Egyptians. All three substantives are prefixed with the preposition min (ן ̣מ ) [pronounced min] (although we only have the ̣מ ) and this preposition carries with it the concept of separation here and is variously translated as out of, from, on account of, off, on the side of since, about, than, so that not (this is obviously the highly edited version from over 6 pages of explanation in BDB).

This is the trick that the court magicians were unable to perform; they could get a few frogs to wander out of the river onto the banks of the river, but they could not get them to advance in the great numbers as Moses did. And, more importantly, they could not get the frogs to retreat.

V. 12: Too many translations have the prophets crying. Moses did not cry to God; what he did was the Qal imperfect of the verb tsâ‛aq (ק ַע ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-AK] and it means, in the King James English, to cry out, to make an outcry; however, in modern English, it means to call out; and since it means to be summoned in the Niphal (Judgeds 7:23–24 10:17 12:1 II Kings 3:21), this would indicate that it could mean to summon in the Qal. The imperfect tense means that Moses prayed for a period of time and then God spoke to him. The substantive preceeding the word frogs is the often used word dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR] and it simply means speech, word, sentence, matter, decision. Then we have quite the interesting Hebrew concept: the word ’ăsher (ר ∵שְַא) [pronounced ash-ER] and it is a particle of relation or a connecting link. It is similar to, but not synonymous with out words which, , whom, wherever, but it is better translated as him who, those who, like him, to that which, you whom, we whose, from the place, that belonging to. It is similar to a relative pronoun in our English, but it is not quite the same thing. The final verb is the Qal perfect of sûwm (ם ) [pronounced soom] and it has a variety of meanings which include to set, to place, to appoint; when God is the subject, it is a part of God's perfect plan, a part of His divine decrees made in eternity past. I prefer the translation decreed, particularly when this is in the perfect tense—this is something which God had decided to do in eternity past as a part of His perfect immutable decrees.

Then Moses and Aaron went forth from Pharaoh, and Moses called out to Yahweh concerning the matter [or, the sentence] of the frogs, those which He had decreed for [lit., on or upon] Pharaoh. [Ex. 8:12 (8:8)]

Notice that both Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, but Moses did all of the talking. When they leave, it is Moses who calls upon God. This does not mean that Aaron didn't think to do that; it is just that God had called upon Moses and not upon Aaron for this job—Aaron was only there on Moses' request.

And Yahweh did according to the word of Moses; and the frogs died, out of the houses and out of the courtyards and out of the fields; [Ex. 8:13 (8:9)]

One of the places where the frogs died was in the châtsêr (ר ֵצ ָח ) [pronounced khaw-TSARE] and it means courtyard, enclosure, which is the area surrounding the house. Therefore, I have translated this with the word courtyard rather than with the word yard.

Prayer is sometimes a difficult concept; most people only know the prayer, God help, I am in a jam (usually one entirely of their own making), followed by a vow or a promise to do something for God or to do something they view as painful, but spiritual (like attend church for a month). Of the prayers in the Bible, damn few of them are God help me prayers, and those which offer God some kind of a deal are usually uttered by those in apostasy. Here Moses calls out to God and God does what He had planned in eternity past—he destroys the frogs. But notice how the Bible puts it: And Yahweh did according to the word of Moses. This is real praying; this is effective prayer. This is prayer which reveals knowledge of God's will and purpose; this is prayer which reveals orientation to the plan of God. This is the kind of prayer that glorifies God; not some sniveling help me; please make it stop hurting because you got yourself into a jam. Here we have answered prayer.

To get a feel for the Hebrew and the nuances in this language, we have the substantive dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR] again, and it reveals that God has answered Moses prayer and He has done what Moses promised to Pharaoh. Dâbâr refers both to what Mose said in prayer to God but also what he said to Pharaoh. He told Pharaoh when the frogs would cease to over-populate the land of Egypt and God did according to that word.

And they piled them up [in] heaps heaps [or, large heaps]; and the land had become loathesome [stank]. [Ex. 8:14 (8:9)]

God did not have the frogs retreat nor did they simply return to the river. Those which were underfoot in numbers unimaginable all died. God's purpose here is that all the people of Egypt, including Pharaoh, would have an aromatic reminder of God's power. Pharaoh, as he refuses to stand by his word to Moses, can smell the horrible smell of millions of dead frogs.

We have two analogous situations here (1) The Egyptians are under God's wrath because of the the Pharaoh's decision not to let the Jews go. The Pharaoh as leader is under discipline for not allowing the Jews to go. His decision is very similar to the one that Adam made as the federal head of the human race. Adam's decision to sin filled the entire world with sin and we bear an old sin nature because of his choice to sin. Pharaoh, as the federal head of Egypt, due to his choices, subjected his entire country to plagues and discomfort. His decisions affected the entire nation of Egypt, from the least to the greatest. (2) The second analogy which may be drawn here is the act of sinning, remaining out of fellowship, receiving deiscipline and getting back into fellowship. There are times that we commit a sin or a series of sins and rebound, but there is still a mess there to clean up. While we are out of fellowship, we are under discipline. So long as the Pharaoh chose not to let the Jews leave, he subjected his nation and himself to discipline; so far in the form of the water being turned to blood and the invasion of the frogs. When we rebound, or name our sins, we are restored to fellowship and the discipline is removed. When the Pharaoh said that he would allow the Jews to leave, is was analogous to rebound and being restored to fellowship. The discipline was removed. However, there was still a mess to clean up. This is often the case in our lives following rebound. Depending upon the circumstances, we can make utter ruin of our lives through being out of fellowship. Some of what we face is discipline and some of it is natural consequences. However, once we rebound, the discipline is removed. What remains is natural consequences and blessing from God. This blessing from God and the natural consequences serves as a constant reminder of the the repercussions of our sins. This is not discipline but it helps us to realize how serious the effect of sin is in our lives. God has removed the plague of the frogs from the Egyptians, but the effects of that plague will remain with them for a few days in the form of huge heaps of frogs (literally, "heaps heaps," which is an Hebrewistic way of emphasizing a word; they repeat it, rather than use an adjective to describe it).

But, when the Pharaoh saw that there had come a respite then he caused his heart to be heavy and he would not listen to them [Moses and Aaron]—as God had said. [Ex. 8:15 (8:11)]

Here, to harden or, more properly, to make his heart heavy is in the infinitive but it is, in most translations, rendered as an indicative. There are a number of times when one mood is used when another is implied. This is the Hiphil infinitive absolute, which, as Zodhiates puts it, presents in the active voice, causative action in the form of a verbal noun, usually as a complement of affirmation.

God's word (or guarantee) is good and God stands by His word. Even though God knew in eternity past that Pharaoh would go back on his word, God did not go back on His, nor did He leave Moses there holding the bag, having given Pharaoh a promise. Moses promised Pharaoh that the frogs would no longer harass them and God fulfilled that promise. We learn about character here. Someone who can give you his word and then will stand by his word is a man of honor; a man whose character imitates the character of God. Too often, a man will give his word concerning a business deal, but then something more advantageous to him comes along and he goes back on his word and does the smart thing insofar as his business is concerned. This is why we have contracts because man is not as good as his word. This is like the woman who agrees to go out on a date, but then someone better comes along and she stands up the first guy; or the man or the woman who profess love one day, but then someone better comes along and the love they professed means nothing. This is Pharaoh—he promised to let the people go, but then reneged. The southern expression I learned is he never said nothing he couldn't take back. It does not matter that these things occurred over thre milleniums ago a half a world away; the Bible is applicable to today. However, you do not get this out of reading your Bible. You get this from a pastor-teacher who might spend one hour just translating a verse, picking up a few of its nuances and implications, and then giving it to you in ten minutes. This is God's plan for this dispensation.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Stretch forth your staff and smite the dust of the land; so shall it become gnats to al the land of Egypt.'" [Ex. 8:16 (8:12)]

This is somewhat humorous. Moses begged God in every way that he knew how to be dismissed from this project; and, if he couldn't get out of it, could he stand behind Aaron. However, with the last plague and with Pharaoh's temporary capitulation, Moses was so excited, he went right to Pharaoh and spoke to him directly; he probably got Aaron to go with him as almost an afterthought. God tells Moses what he is to have Aaron do. Moses is ready to take over; he is beginning to believe and to appreciate the power of God. God still has Moses work through Aaron.

We are not certain whether these are lice or gnats—and it could be two stages of the same insect. These were very small, irritating insects in huge numbers.

And they did so, and Aaron stretched forth his hand with his staff and struck the dust of the land, and there came to be gnats, among men and among beasts, all the dust of the land had become gnats in all the land of Egypt. [Ex. 8:17 (8:13)]

The end of v. 17 is both written and read and all the dust of the land became gnats; although the Septuagint gives it a slightly different slant with the rendering and in all the dust of the land there came to be gnats. This is called an hyperbole (or exaggeration). The number of gnats was so unbelievable that they are compared to the dust in Egypt. This does not mean there is a one-to-one relationship between the dust and the gnats. We have studied similar hyperboles in Gen. 2:24 41:47 and will find several more to come (Judges 20:16 is a good example).

There is some confusion as to exactly what this particular plague was. Some translators use the term lice, and others gnats. The New American Standard Bible uses both. BDB mentions that this could likely include maggots. The Amplified Bible uses biting gnats or mosquitos, which I like because it conveys the horrible intrusion of these insects upon the lives of the Egyptians.

Can you imagine not being able to even lay down to sleep without being swarmed by hundreds of small, crawling, flying, biting insects? The gnats were so thick that it was if the dust had turned into gnats. Here is where I must admit that it seems as though this could be a natural phenomenah. With the polluted water and the huge piles of dead frogs, it is very possible that we have an incredible invasion of very small insects which feed off these dead frogs. However, the numbers of insects implied by this passage and the short amount of time that it takes for them to make their appearance in the land of Egypt still indicates that this is a miracle.

And the religious illusionists did in like manner, with their incantations, to bring forth the gnats, but they could not. So there came to be gnats among men and among beasts. [Ex. 8:18 (8:14)]

What the religious illusionists attempted to do was to strike the ground with their rods and staffs to make the dust rise as gnats, but this particular plague was one that they could not immitate (the word duplicate would not be apropos because they never duplicated a miracle of God; they only immitated God's power). The active voice of the Hebrew reads that the religous illusionists did in like manner, but this is an idiom where an agent's attempt or design to do something is what is meant, although the thing was not actually done. This is not a common idiom, found only here, Deut. 28:68 and Ezek. 24:13 in the Old Testament. It is possible here that Pharaoh did not want them to put too much effort into this endeavor.

Then the sacred scribes said to Pharaoh, "It is the finger of God." But the heart of Pharaoh became stronger and he did not listen to them, as God had said. [Ex. 8:19 (8:15)]

The finger of God is obviously an anthropopathism standing for God's formative power and an immediate and direct act of God. That is, this is not God's causative will involved here where what He chooses to happen does occur because it falls within His plan—God Himself is acknowledged by the scribes to have directly intervened with human history at this point. Here they have judged rightly.

The religious illusionists finally could not duplicate one of the miracles and they realized that this was God's work. They realized before that what Moses did was superior to their "magic." They could do miracles similar to what Moses did, but they could not match the scope and intensity of what Moses did. When they told Pharaoh that this was truly of God, the Pharaoh no longer called for them. He was negative against this entire situation and very negative toward God. Most people can be beaten down when facing these kinds of pressures; but not Pharaoh. He fought against God's will with every bit of human strength that he had. And when he came to the end of his own human strength, God provided him with more. Several leaders who have come to the end of their rope and abilities have committed suicide, have gone insane, have left office, etc. Pharaoh of Egypt was in that situation. He was fully negative toward God but he was running out of his own human resources and strength to resist Him. When it says that God strengthened Pharaoh's heart; God simply gave Pharaoh the will, the persistance and the fortitude to go on. This is not a doctrine to worry about. In a similar fashion, when we as Christains are at the end of our rope and beaten down, God often gives us strength to go on. God, by giving Pharaoh the will and strength to go on, used Pharaoh's negative volition to evangelize the world.

Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Rise up early in the morning and station yourself before Pharaoh; behold, his coming forth to the waters; there you will say to him, 'Thus says Yahweh; "Let my people go that they may serve me."'" [Ex. 8:20 (8:16)]

The previous plague was covered in a very short amount of space. We do not know when Moses wrote this down and it is possible that the plague of the gnats (or lice) either did not stand out in his mind or, if he were writting this as a journal, then he may have recorded both of these plagues at the same time, his memory being fresher for this following plague.

In this verse, as often has been the case, God has told Moses what to say to Aaron and they are now stationing themselves as Pharaoh goes out presumably to bathe.

"'"But if you do not let my people go, notice [what I will do]; I am sending forth against you and against your servants and against your people and against your houses swarms of the [blood-sucking] gad-fly. And the houses of the Egyptians will be filled with swarms of the [blood-sucking] gad-ly; moreoever, also the ground whereon they [are] [or, concerning the area where they are found]; [Ex. 8:21 (8:17)]

We do not know the exact nature of this insect of ths insect either. Thieme interprets these as golden scarabs; beetles which are often found in the tombs of the Egyptians. They would go through several disgusting stages, as most insects do. Wilson pictures these insects as the dog fly, which penetrates the skin and draws blood. I personally would not be surprised if this turned out to be a generic term and Egypt was invaded by several types of insects. The term gnat itself is a very imprecise term, which takes under its wing, so to speak, several species of insects. It could have been a hoard of insects. This one is obviously capable of flying and some dwell on the ground (meaning either a different species or the same species at a different stage of growth).

"Then I will make to differ [lit., set appart] on that day, the land of Goshen, wherein my people do dwell [lit., are standing or are taking a stand]; so that there will not be a gadfly there in order that you will know that I, Yahweh, am in the midst of the land [this could also be read: I, Yahweh, am in the midst of the earth];" [Ex. 8:22 (8:18)]

In the first, sentence, the verb is not the verb for live or dwell as we find in most translations, but it is the Qal active participle of ‛âmad (ד ַמ ָע) [pronounced aw-MAD], which means to stand, to take a stand. In the Qal active participle, it can act as a verbal noun, modifying people with the word standing.

Suddenly we have a break in routine. This time, the Jews are not subjected to the plague. God, in showing His power and control, did not inflict the land of Goshen with this insect. Whereas one could think that the advent of this insect is a purely natural consequence of having a great many great stinking piles of dead frogs, it is unquestionably miraculous that the Jews, living almost side-by-side they Egyptians, were not inflicted with this plague. They enjoyed a wall of fire; an invisible wall of protection which all Christians have. We have no clue as to how many are the ills that God protects us from. Also, such speculations must take into consideration our spiritual worth and spiritual growth—Satan desired to sift Peter like wheat and he would have, had God allowed it. However, God provided Peter with protection that, apart from that particular quote of our Lord's, he (and we) may not have been cognizant. We are God's children as believers and God, when He is not forced by our actions and deeds to discipline us, does what every loving parent would do—He protects us; He isolates us from those who would do us harm. This is why a believer can exist in the midst of an economic depression and be rich; he can live during severe oppression, and be spiritually provided for; he can exist during severe natural disasters and receive God's personal protection. We saw this kind of protection in Noah in the ark and we see it here with God's people, the Jews.

"So I will put a separation between my people and your people. By tomorrow, these things shall come to pass.'" [Ex. 8:23 (8:19)]

Most Bibles read "I will place a separation between My people and your people" (or words to that effect) in this verse. However, this is not how it reads in the Hebrew. The word found there is ransom, p^edûwth (תד ׃) [pronounced ped-OOTH] but, according to BDB, p. 804, this text is probably dubious. In this passage, it is actually written as ת ֻד ׃ and the word for divide is written ד ַד ָ . Since the vowel points are not found in the original, a slip of then pen can turn a d (ד) into a th (ת). The Septuagint uses the word for separation in this passage rather than the word for ransom, so we are likely safe in going with majority of the translations

On the other hand, Bullinger asserts the opinion that this is a simple metonymy, where one word stand sfor another. Here, what is signified (redemption) is used instead of the sign of the redemption (which would be the act of judgement). That is, instead of saying that "I will place a judgement (which is the sign of redemption) between My people and your people", Yahweh says, "I will place a redemption (the judgement signifies that God has redeemed His people or is a sign that He has redeemed His people) between My people and your people." He also cites similar metonymies in Num. 6:7 Deut. 16:3 22:15, 17 II Kings 13:17, etc. These examples do not use the word redemption but they do use various words which stand in for the sign of their existance, as was done here. Sice there are not an overwhelming number of manuscripts which support a textual error, Bullinger's opinion here seems to me to be the most likely.

There are actually two major changes with these plagues: (1) not only is this the first time the notion of separation is mentioned; and (2) whereas the first three plagues were extreme inconveniences and quite offensive to all the senses, but this begins a series of plagues which are painful.

And Yahweh did so and brought a grievous [blood-sucking] gad fly into the house of Pharaoh and the house of his servants and in all the land of Egypt; and

the land was laid waste by reason of the gad fly. [Ex. 8:24 (8:20)]

This was far more than an inconvenience. Shâchath (ת ַח ָש ) [pronounced shaw-KHATH] means to go to ruin, to destory, to corrupt. We saw this verb used in Gen. 6 when it spoke of all flesh becoming corrupted. This verb is in the Niphil imperfect, 3rd feminine singular; meaning the subject is the word land and the Niphal stem is the passive stem, meaning that this corruption was done to the land. The imperfect tense means that this destruction is viewed as an ongoing process. When it says that the land was laid waste by this gad fly, this means that this totally disrupted all production of any kind. They could not farm, build, sell, buy. Egypt was shut down as a thriving nation in one day due to the vicious attack of this blood sucking insect.

Then Pharaoh cried out to Moses and to Aaron, and said, "Go your way; sacrifice to your God within the land." [Ex. 8:25 (8:21)]

When Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron and submitted to God, this does not mean that Pharaoh has recognized God as the God of the universe; he still calls Yahweh "your God." He does not realize that Yahweh is his God also; the God who could damn him to a living hell. Furthermore, what Pharaoh is not offering total capitulation. He will allow the Jews to make sacrifices to God in the land of Egypt. God is expecting the Jews to separate themselves from Egypt and the Pharaoh will not allow that. Scofield points out that this is a postion of compromise. He is not allowing the Jews to separate from Egypt. God has told them to break this bond with Egypt and Pharaoh is maintaining this bond. God has told Moses to lead the Jews out of the land and Pharaoh is trying to modify this command. Our two basic problems are compromise and separation. The first is illustrated in I Sam. 15:3,9,13-15,19-23, the second by II Cor. 6:14-18.

And Moses said "It is not right to do this, for [it is] an abomination to the Egyptians that we should sacrifice to Yahweh our God. If we sacrifice that which is an abomination to the Egyptians [literally, the abomination of Egypt] before their eyes, will they then not stone us?" [Ex. 8:26 (8:22)]

Notice again who is doing the talking. Moses knows some doctrine. He sees clearly that the issue is one of separation. The Jews must be completely removed from Egyptians. The Egyptians look upon the sacrificial system demanded by God—the blood sacrifices—as pagan and an abomination. If the Jews communed with God and offered animal sacrifices, it would totally offend the sensibilities of the Egyptians.

We must go [for] a journey of three days into the desert; then we will sacrifice to Yahweh our God as He has said to us." [Ex. 8:27 (8:23)]

Moses has learned from the short experience in the desert with the circumcision of his son that there is to be no compromise. It is either God's way or it is not done. He does not jump on the chance to do what is similar to God's command. Moses tries to explain on the Pharaoh's level why this would not work. This is not an explanation given Moses by God. The Egyptians had a lot of deities and there were a lot of animals that they would not sacrifice. Seeing the Hebrews making all thes animal sacrifices would have disturbed them. However, this is not why God told Moses to take a three day journey into the desert with the Israelites. Pharaoh mistakenly thinks that there may be some room in here to arbitrate. He thinks that he and Moses are now negociating the terms. He is unaware that there is no give and take here. The Jews have been mandated by God to go into the desert and worship and there is no half-way ground whereupon Moses can settle.

Then said Pharaoh, "I will let you go; that you may sacrifice to Yahweh your God in the desert, only you will not go a very long journey. [Also,] make an appeal for me." [Ex. 8:28 (8:24)]

Pharaoh doesn't quite get it; he thinks that Yahweh is a localized God out in the desert. Moses has given him correct information but it cannot penetrate his negative volition. This is how some people can hear the gospel manyh times and it never quite sinks in; or they forget it easily. Their negative volition blocks their minds from receiving spritual information.

Pharaoh recognizes that he is in a tight spot. His country is being destroyed by these plagues. On the other hand, he cannot let the two million slaves just walk away from Egypt. They have made Egypt what it is that day due to their massive production. Pharaoh does not know God and does not realize that God's demands to him are non-negociable. He is trying to set up some sort of middle ground. Moses implied that was a possibility when he gave Pharaoh his explanation as to why the Jews had to sacrifice away from the Egyptians. Therefore, Pharaoh offers the compromise: if the Jews cannnot sacrifice to Yahweh out in front of the Egyptians, then they can do it in private; but not too far away. This certainly sounds very reasonable, but God does not allow separation to be halfway. Years later, in the desert, the degenerate Jews will cry for the leeks and onions of Egypt. Had they not been fully separate, many Jews might have returned to Egypt, resuming a life of oppressive slavery.

Pharaoh does recognize God's power and Moses' ties to the living God and does ask, before what he assumes is the end of this conversation, for Moses to make entreaty on his behalf. That is, he is requesting Moses to ask God to remove these plagues. He certainly does not want these Jews and Moses to go into the desert and leave him hanging with the plague of the gnats still in full effect.

And Moses said , "Behold, I am going out from here [lit., you] and will make a request to Yahweh so will He remove the [blood-sucking] gad fly from Pharaoh, from his servants and from his people tomorrow; only, only let not Pharaoh again deceive in not letting the people go, to sacrifice to Yahweh." [Ex. 8:29 (8:25)]

Moses fully understands why Pharaoh wants him to pray to God. This is not someone who leads a mediocre life and, in spotting someone they think might be spiritual, suddenly request that they say a little prayer for them. Pharaoh wants to be rid of the insects and Moses acknowledges that. Moses does not addresss the compromise suggested by Pharaoh. He will go to God in prayer and request the removal of the gad fly. He warns Pharaoh not to change his mind again as he did with the frogs (Ex. 8:8-15). It is just possible that Moses knows, because of what God has told him, that the Pharaoh will resist God when the plague is withdrawn. After all, God has told Moses this time and time again. Moses is a genius so it is possible that he now understands and believes what God has told him.

There is another application that we can receive out of all this. I have seen parents and adults throw up their hands when dealing with kids. They give up on showing them the right direction because they say that kids are going to do what they are going to do anyway. Moses doesn't treat Pharaoh this way. He already knows that Pharaoh will go back on his word. Still, he warns Pharaoh not to. When dealing with children and matters of right and wrong, regardless of how negative they might be; if their guidance is your responsibility, then they must be continually pointed in the right direction, even if we are certain that they will turn around and run the other way. Children learn by repetition and by having their hands burned when they touch the hot stove. Even if we know they will touch the stove anyway, we still tell them that it's hot and not to. Even though Moses knows that Pharaoh will go back on his word; he still warns Pharaoh not to.

So Moses went out from Pharaoh and made supplication to Yahweh. And Yahweh did according to the word of Moses and took away the gad fly from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; there remained not one. [Ex. 8:30–31 (8:26–27)]

Again, Moses goes to God in prayer and God answers this prayer. God answered it in eternity past but God is glorified because Moses asked God to do what was His will. The removal of this blookd-sucking gad fly was no less than miraculous. Every area of Egypt, other than the land of Goshen was heavily infested with this insect and suddenly there remains not even one fly. This is not a natural phenomenon.

And Pharaoh made his heart dull [and heavy] and he did not let the people go. [Ex. 8:32 (8:28)]

God knew that Phharaoh would renig on his vow, yet God keeps His word even when man does not keep his. There is no compromising perfect integrity. We should emulate that (we are commanded to be immitators of Christ and of God). Our word should be our bond; what we say should be enough to commit us. It does not matter if those around us are dishonest or do not keep their word; we are to maintian our integrity. The failures of people around us should not affect our reflection of Jesus Christ in our lives. The Pharaoh's word to Moses and to God, as the ruler of his country, means nothing.

Pharaoh, degenerate as he is, finds the strength when the pressure is off and changes his own mind. With the removal of the insect, he feels empowered and strengthened.

Introduction: Chapter 9 continues the plagues brought upon Egypt by God. Herein we have the plague of the livestock, of the boils and of the hail.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh and then you will say to him, 'Thus says Yahweh, God of the Hebrews, "Release My people go that they may serve me." [Ex. 9:1]

Just as Moses no longer tells Aaron what to speak; God no longer tells Moses what to tell Aaron to say. This was God's preferred plan and it looks as though Moses is finally coming along. He is seeing some results of God's great power–he is seeing that God knows exactly how Pharaoh is going to react, and he is beginning to feel comfortable in his role. No longer is he concerned about his ability or lack of ability when it comes to public speaking. This is not an issue to Moses. What God tells him to do and what God does—these are the true issues in his life. When it comes to things spiritual, we do not need to dwell upon our weaknesses or upon our strengths. Even people with very low I.Q.'s can teach God's Word, can evangelize, can give, can visit the sick, can give words of comfort and encouragement. When it comes to our secular place in life, certainly we have to be cognizant of our abilities and our short comings. However, when it comes to our spiritual service, how we feel about ourselves is not an issue. How God feels about us and what God has in store for us—that is the issue. Moses is no longer trapped by his lack of speaking ability, as he said (he was a fantastic public speaker). Now God's plan for his life and move at full speed. This does not eliminate Aaron from Goid's plan; it allows Aaron the opportunity to delve into what God had planned specifically for him.

"However, if you refuse to let them go and continue to hold them, [then] see the hand of Yahweh is coming [lit., will be] on your cattle, which are in the field, on the horses, on the asses, on the camels, on the herds and on the flocks—a very grievous pestilence." [Ex. 9:2–3]

One of the words translated plague is deber (ר ∵ב ∵) [pronounced deh-BER] and it means pestilence, illness, plague; it is actually only found in this one passage of Exodus in this particular context, yet is found in several other places throughout the Bible (Num. 14:12 I Kings 8:37 Ezek. 5:12). The vowel points, though not coming into play in the manuscripts until centuries after the first advent are key. Right next door we have the word dâbâr (ר ָב ָ), which we examined in the last chapter—it means word, speech, command, matter, affair, etc. Next door to those two words is the verb to speak, with again the same consonants and different vowel points. It is these vowel points which separate for us the noun from the verb from other words which mean entirely different things.

God has set up for Pharaoh another very clear-cut choice: either he lets the Israelites go or He will send to Pharaoh and all of his livestock a horrible, deadly virus which will wipe out his cattle. If you ar wondering why God has chosen to destroy much of the livestock of Egypt, it is simple. The Egyptians worshipped cattle and the idea that the Jews would take these same cattle and sacrifice to Yahweh would have been an abomination to the Egyptians. We have no indication that the Jews sacrificed any cattle in recent history (perhaps the past century prior to this, if not longer); but their worship would require the slaughter of various beasts to illustrate Jesus Christ coming to earth and dying for our sins; the innocent dying on behalf of the guilty. Secondarily, this was an economic attack upon Egypt. In the ancient world, one measure of wealth was the amount of food that a culture had access to. That it, great production in the fields and a large livestock population indicated that a country was very wealthy and prosperous. God has begun to decimate that wealth to discipline Egypt. The use of the anthropopathism here (the hand of God) infers judgement and punishment.

And Yahweh will make a distinction between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of the Egyptians; so that nothing shall die from among all that belongs to the sons of Israel.'" [Ex. 9:4]

Again, we have separation between the Egyptians and the Israelites. The word used to denote this is pâlâh (ה ָל ָ) [pronounced paw-LAW] and it appears to have two distinct meanings. When two things are involved, then a distincition is being made between those two things (Ex. 8:22 9:4 11:7 33:16 Psalm 4:3); however, it seems to mean something entirely different in other contexts (Psalm 17:7 139:14). Furthermore, this distincition is not in the tense or the stem but in the context—a very unusual word.

And Yahweh appointed a set time, saying, "Tomorrow, Yahweh will do this thing in the land." [Ex. 9:5]

We seamlessly move from Yahweh speaking directly to Moses to Moses speaking with Pharaoh. Actually, nothing is said of Pharaoh here, but the same conversation took place between God and Moses as did between Moses and Pharaoh. In this verse, God the Father is speaking to Moses and He is not speaking of Himself in the 3rd person but of Yahweh Elohim, the Son of God. God throughout this ordeal always gave Pharaoh more than a fair chance. Pharaoh was warned a full day in advance—he had one day to consider what had happened and to allow the Israelites to leave for three days to worship.

And Yahweh did this thing the next day and all of the cattle of the Egyptians kept dying but of the cattle of the sons of Israel not one died. [Ex. 9:6]

The same word for dying is found twice in this verse, but I have translated them somewhat differently because the first one is found in the Qal imperfect (which is often continuous action) and the second use of this word is in the Qal perfect, for completed action.

The word all in the Hebrew is sometimes misunderstood. To the simple reader, it clearly says that all of the cattle in Egypt have died, so how can future judgements have any affect upon the cattle? However, partially because there is no definite article which accompanies the word cattel (or, livestock), all here does not refer to the entirety of the population but refers back to the ennumeration of types of livestock listed in v. 3. All of the groupings therein listed were affected by this plague—this allows the writer to not have to list all the various types of cattle again.

Again, God separates that which belongs to the Israelites from that which belongs to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. One of the reasons that Pharaoh is determined to hold onto the Jews is economic. For two centuries, the Jews have been willing slaves who have built up the Egyptian empire. The Pharaoh certainly believed that the prosperity of his empire was dependent upon the Jews. In one the respect, this was true, but not in the way that he thought. Egypt could have been prospered greatly had they cultivated a good relationship with God's people. However, they were not prospered because the Jews were their slaves. This would be their economic downfall.

The previous plague and this one were painful, both physically and economically. God is systematically destroying their economy; as the Eyptian economy is one of the reasons Pharaoh refuses to allow the Jews to depart. The first three plagues, as Scofield put it, were loathsome: blood-stained water, frogs and lice (or gnats). The next group were painful and/or economically destructive: the blood-sucking gad flies, the death of the cattle, the boils, the hail and the locusts. The final two will strike the very heart and soul of the Egyptians: the thick darkness that cannot be penetrated by light (a foreshadowing of the cross) and the death of the first-born of all the Egyptians (also a foreshadowing of the cross). This mimics the discipline that we are under when we are out of fellowship. God begins with warning discipline, proceeds with more intensive discipline and culminates with dyng discipline if we do not back off from the evil in our lives. Furthermore, these plagues attacked the religion in Egypt. It was the God of the Jews versus the gods of the Egyptians. They worshipped a frog-like diety; God sent the Egyptians millions of frogs. The Egyptians would not sacrifice their cattle to God (in fact, some cattle were worshipped; we know this because they even mumified some of their bulls); God takes their cattle from them. They worshiped Ra, the sun-god; God removes light from them.

And Pharaoh sent [men to investigate the cattle in Goshen], and, behold, there had not died even one of the cattle of Israel. But Pharaoh's heart became dull and heavy and he did not let the people go. [Ex. 9:7]

Pharaoh knows what God has told him and he sends out his men to determine if those things came to pass or not. Even though their reports again vindicate the Word of God, Pharaoh continues his negative volition toward God. The word here used refers to the negative volition in Pharaoh's soul; as opposed to the strengthening of Pharaoh's heart so that he could express his negative voltion. To remind you, there are two different words being translated hardening of Pharaoh's heart. One is a word which expresses negative volition. God tells Pharaoh to release the people of Israel and Pharaoh stubbournly says no. That is the use found here. The other word which is used expresses that Pharaoh's ability to continue to oppose God is waining. That is, a man in his position with his responsibilities with the decisions that he must make, is under enough pressure at this time to cause him to lose his mind, to turn into a babbling emotional wreck, to commit suicide. Even if he is the most heartless ruler on earth, the pain and discomfort that he must bear, besides the hatred of his own people because he as Pharaoh cannot seem to do anything correct, is pressure beyond what any of us could face. God allowed him to continue; God gave him the strength to persist and resist. God strengthened or fortified his heart. God in no wise planted negative volition inside of Pharaoh—Pharaoh did that himself.

The Yahweh said to Moses and to Aaron, "Take your hands full of the ashes of an oven and Moses shall scatter them towards the heavens before the eyes of Pharaoh." [Ex. 9:8]

Aaron was brought into this by Moses. God, when Moses began to do what God had told him to do in the first place, was not discarded. Pharaoh was used to both men coming to him and presenting God's Word, so God has allowed Aaron to continue to take part in this assault upon Pharaoh. Moses still did all of the talking and most of the action, but God does find a place for Aaron.

According to Freeman, East Indian magicians would take the ashes of cow-dung or those from a fire and cast them into the air while pronouncing a curse upon some object of their displeasure. I do not know which came first.

"Then they will become fine dust, over all the land of Egypt. And then shall they land [lit., become] upon man and beast, a burning sore, breaking out in ulcers upon man and beast, in all the land of Egypt." [Ex. 9:9]

The destruction of the cattle and livestock in the previous plague was not absolute. There remained, as this verse indicates, some of the Egyptian livestock (and all of the Hebrew livestock). It is even possible that just the first-born of the livestock was killed. The Bible is not specific as to how many were killed or what per centage. It was enough to cause the Egyptians severe economic problems, however.

So they took the ashes of a kiln and stood before Pharaoh and Moses scattered them towards the heavens; and it came to pass that there was [lit, it became] a burning sore breaking out in boils among men and among beasts. [Ex. 9:10]

Nothing has been said about the systems of communication in Egypt. However, there would be a growing dissention against Pharaoh within the palace. These men, being subjected to economic ruin and pain and suffering would talk to their families; they would be stopped in the street and asked what was going on by others who knew their position in the Egyptian government. The Egyptians would have nothing more important to talk about. They faced economic collapse and great physical pains and discomforts due to these plagues. The story of what was occuring would get out and circulate throughout all of Egypt. People who came to Egypt to trade would leave quickly after being subjected to one or two plagues. In the week they might stay and endure, they would find out what was occuring and noise this information abroad. Most, if not all, of the plagues went on for a week. These kinds of things were so significant, so devasting, so painful, that the news of them could not help but spread throughout the land as to their cause, as to the power and severity of Yahweh, the God of the Jews. And this news would easily, by now, find itself being voiced abroad, possibly by even some Egyptians who left Egypt themselves, no longer able to endure the pain and suffering that they faced each day.

And the religious illusionists could not stand before Pharaoh because of the burning sore had come on the religious illusionists, as well as on all the Egyptians. [Ex. 9:11]

These religious illusionts have not been mentioned since the invasion of the gnats or the locusts. They have still been invovled in the court decisions, in strengthening or bolstering Pharaoh. There are two views here as to whay they were unable to appear before Pharaoh: (1) the preists were supposed to be spotless and without blemish; these boils defiled them; or, (2) they were in too much physical pain to even come to Pharaoh. Their bodies are covered with painful, cancerous sores. These are beyond discomfort. I guess that you could say that they are in too much physical pain to show up to work, so to speak, and their uniforms are dirty.

But Yahweh strengthened Pharaoh's heart and he did not listen to them [reference to Moses and Aaron, not to the religious illusionists], just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. [Ex. 9:12]

Very little is said about this particular plague. We are not given Pharaoh's reaction, his change of mind, or anything about Pharaoh, other than God strengthened his heart. To some this is confusing, but God uses the wrath of man to praise Him. We are not even told that this bypassed the Jews, although certainly it did.

You might have asked yourself throughout this ordeal, why are the Egyptians suffering when it is Pharaoh's negative volition? Everyone has free will and these Egyptians were with Jews day after day. Some people and nations accept the Jew and treat them fairly. Others take advantage of them and other nations and peoples persecute them. Any Egyptian could have at any time joined in with the Jews. In fact, it is possible that some of them did (Ex. 12:38 Num. 11:4). This sort of infliction of pain combined with the source evangelized the Egyptians. They all had free will and they could have thrown themselves at God's mercy, begging for forgiveness for their ghastly treatment of the Jews (either their direct actions or the consent to what Pharaoh did to the Jews). Many of them had become very anti-Semetic and God judges anti-Semites. Furthermore, some people can only be evangelized under great pain and stress. This is my own personal experience.

What occurred here evangelized the entire world for centuries, so it is highly likely that a few Egyptians also believed in Jesus Christ and joined the Jews. However, most of them, mirroring Pharaoh's scarred heart and negative volition, based upon prejudice, did not. Most continued to hate the Jews and they continued to receive the discipline due to them. Actually, discipline is a misnomer—unbelievers, in general, are not disciplined by God, but they are judged by God in their unbelief.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Rise up early in the morning and station yourself before Pharaoh; then you will say to him, 'Thus says Yahweh, God of the Hebrews, "Let my people go that they may serve me."'" [Ex. 9:13]

The message to Pharaoh is simple and concise. There are no negotiations to be done. God has given Pharaoh a straightforward mandate of what is expected of him. At each plague, God goes to Pharaoh, using the voice of Moses and Aaron, and tells Pharaoh quite simply to release His people, the Jews. Then God allows Pharaoh his free will to react in whatever way he chooses.

"For this time I will send all My plagues upon you [lit., to your heart] and among your servants and among your people with the intent that you will [eventually] come to know that there is none like Me in all the earth." [Ex. 9:14]

Now God states His intentions to Pharaoh; these plagues are sent throughout the entire land of Egypt upon all of the Pharaoh's subjects, as well as all of those under his direct command in the palace ro reveal that Yahweh, the God of the Jewish people, is a God like none other. He is the true God, the only God; the God Who created the universe; the God with power beyond imaginiation. The other gods worshipped by the Egyptians and other heathen are fronts for demons. Demons, in their strength and emotional needs, desire our worship and allegiance and were heavily involved with the Egyptians. Men have assumed that their gods were superior or at least equal to the gods in other lands; much like today some in the United States feel that Krishna or Buddha are equivalent to the God that we worhsip here in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Krishna and Buddha are demon-fronts. Satan is the author of religion and doing good to impress God. He is behind these gods which are associated with certain nations and cultures. It does not matter how widespread the religion is or how many adherants it has. There is but one God and He came to earth and took His place beside us in the form of a man and he took upon Himself the punishment for all of the sins that we have ever committed and that we ever will commit. Krishan did not die on behalf of our sins—Krishna is not our savior and is not our mediatior. He is not qualified to be this. Same deal with Buddha. These are men fronting for Satan. They are not different or localized names for the same God.

"For now I might have put forth my hand and stricken you and your people with pestilence; and you would have quietly disappeared from the earth." [Ex. 9:15]

God could have chosen to simply kill all of the Egyptians and the Jews would have been able to simply leave Egypt without a fight. God is certainly able to do that. In fact, that requires less than what He has done so far. However, his purpose was not souly to move the Jews from point A to point B. They werre to be His representatives and God had to let the world know that. God evangelized the world; God revealed Himself to the world. God showed the world that He alone is God and beside Him there is no other. There are no localized gods and there is no other God but the God of the Jews.

"But in very deed for this purpose have I allowed you to remain [lit., I have caused you to stand]; for the purpose of showing My might and that My name may be celebrate in all the earth."'" [Ex. 9:16]

Pharaoh was not created by God to do evil that God might be glorified. In some translations, it sounds as though God raised up Pharaoh for this purpose. God allows Pharaoh the use of his free will and God's plan functions even using Pharaoh's free will. However, the verb used here is not one for raised up but it is the 1st person singular, Hiphil perfect with a 2nd masculine singular suffix of ‛âmad (ד ַמ ָע) [pronounced aw-MAD], which means to take ones stand, to stand. The Hiphil stem is causative and the perfect tense means that this is a completed action insofar as God is concerened. The causative stem and also be used in a permissive way, and that is how it is used here. God has permitted Phraoh to take a stand. Not only has He permitted Pharaoh to do this, but God has given him the strength to oppose Him when his own strength was lacking. Sometimes, when I cover these verses one at a time, we lose the forest through the trees. There is a contrast which was set up here by this particular verb. This verse is in contrast to v. 15. God has allowed Pharaoh to remain, as opposed to causing him and Egypt to disappear quietly from the earth.

Here, God plainly states His purpose. It is not to free the Hebrews, because that could have been done quietly by inflicting the Egyptians and the Pharaoh with disease and let them die. The Jews would not even have to leave Egypt; Egypt would have been theirs. However, this was not God's plan or purpose. This is why God had to continually give Pharaoh the strength to oppose him. In the doctrine, the hardness of Pharaoh's heart, I gave the analogy of the boxer. Pharaoh has been sent to the canvas several times and, although he wants to fight back; he despises his opponent, his own strength will not allwo him to go on. Therefore, God has given him the strength to stand up again and to fight.

Another point, which is made in several places throughout Scripture: there is a certain exclusivity when it comes to God. There is no such thing as worshipping just any God. There was not an equivalent god among the gods of the Egyptians. There is but one God, and during this period of time, it was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There is not some choice of dieties and one cannot find enough similarities between the God of the universe and some other God worshipped by a particular nation to say that they are the same God. "There is none other name unders heaven given among men by which we must be saved." There is one mediator between God and man; the man Christ Jesus. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me." These are quotes from the New Testament. Here it reads, "There is none like me in all the earth." There is clearly a universality of God; however, this is not just any God—this is the God of the universe, Christ Jesus. It does not matter if you are brought up Roman Catholic, Morman, Hindu or Orthodox Jew; there is but one God in the universe and you do not have a choice to worship whoever you feel like or whoever your parents taught you to worship. We are not given the freedom or the tolerance to worship a god that we have made in our own image or a god which just happens to suit us best. When you worship the god who is made in your image or the god that is most convenient, and you are worshipping yourself. Who we worship is not an option when it comes to eternal salvation. Even sincerity is not an excuse: there is but one God in this universe, the God of all mankind, our Creator, Jesus Christ, the God of Israel.

"'"Even yet, you are exalting yourself over my people even in not releasing them. [Ex. 9:17]

Pharaoh himself, in opposing God, was making himself out to be God, exalting himself over the Jews.

"Listen carefully {lit., behold] I will cause to rain down about this time tomorrow an exceedingly heavy hail; in fact [lit., such as] nothing like it has ever been in Egypt, from the day it was founded even unto the present time. [Ex. 9:18]

Isis was the god of the atmosphere in Egypt, who sent rain down to Egypt's crops, whom the Egyptians prayed to that the Nile not be overflooded (yet it needed to have enough water for them to use in their crops). The God of the Universe controls the weather and at best, Isis is a demon-front; at worst, a figment of the Egyptian mentality.

We do not have God's orders to Moses, Moses and Aaron going to see Pharaoh, and then Moses repeating to Pharaoh what God told him to say. We begin by God telling Moses what God expects from Pharaoh and essentially cut to Moses' visit with Pharaoh, without any intervening verbage. It reminds me of the way some movies are cut. God in the opening says to Moses, "And this is what I want you to say to Pharaoh..." and there is an immediate cut to Moses and Pharaoh and Moses is saying these exact words to God.

We are never given percentages, but we could guess that it might be a tenth part of what everyone owns and it could be as much as half of what they own, is affected by each plague. Here, there are still cattle left, even after the loss in general to the loss of those who developed boils on their skin.

Now, therefore, send [and] bring into safety your cattle and all that you have in the field. Concerning all men and beasts which shall be found in the field and shall not be withdrawn into shelter, the hail will come down upon them and they will die. [Ex. 9:19]

The men and beasts are both described as those who are found in the field and those who are not withdrawn into shelter. This is a pleonasm (or, a redundancy)—it is used to call attention to the subject under discussion. When the same thing is described with a positive and a negative, yet, for all intents a purposes, the author has just said the same thing twice, then he is intensifying what is said or repeating for emphasis. As a teacher, I often have to repeat the same concept. So that I don't get too bored and so that my kids can understand things from a different viewpoint, I will often state the same concept two or three times in a row, but in different words. This helps them to fix what I am saying in their minds.

This is a marvelous test. God has just caused the Egyptian people to suffer a great many losses, which affected a lot of the populace and now he is going to give them a chance to make a choice—will they listen to God or will they remain hard-hearted.

You may wonder, weren’t all of the animals killed off in the 5^th plague? Specifically, the 5^th plague, which was against the livestock of Egypt in particular, was directed against the livestock in the field--the horses, donkeys, camels, herds, and flocks. So, there may have been animals which were kept in shelters which were not affected by the first plague against them. Secondly, sometimes when we find the word all, it refers to the vast majority of something—in this case, the plague killed off the vast majority of the livestock in the field. Thirdly, there may be some groups of animals which were not affected by the 5^th plague: wild animals (which would be used as food); cattle and, possibly, sheep and goats (although they may have been included in the phrase herds and flocks. In other words, there were additional animals to be killed, both domesticated and wild, which God did kill with the hail and lightning.

"Those fearing the Word of Yahweh, among the servants of Pharaoh, made his slaves and cattle flee under shelter [lit., into houses];" [Ex. 9:20]

God's Word has always had a double meaning. God is the embodiment of truth and, as such, the Son of God, the visible member of the trinity, Jesus Christ, is called the living Word (John 1:1–3, 12). The written Word of God is that which was spoken by God to man from which we are to learn from and be guided by forever. The word for fear means fear/respect. This allows for the fact that some Egyptians were evangelized by what had happened. So now God will make a difference between those who fear and respect God's living and written Word and those who do not; in other words, we have Gentile salvation here at the outset of the Jewish nation. In fact, because of the relationship between God and His people the Jews, we have Gentile salvation. This was the intention of God in raising up a nation of His own people. The Jews were responsible to represent God on earth to man, just as Moses represented God to Pharaoh on earth. This is all a shadow of things to come where the Son of God will represent to man His Father in the heavens.

The last phrase in this verse is ’el (ל ∵א) [pronounced el] and it is a preposition of direction and it means into. This is followed by a definite article and the nomnative masculine plural of bayith (ת ̣י ַ ) [pronounced bay-YITH] and it means houses. So the Egyptians, having seen the power of God, are not mercilessly crushed due to Pharaoh's obstinance—they are offerred salvation through believing in Jesus Christ and deliverance through obeying Jesus Christ.

"But whoever does not apply his heart unto the Word of Yahweh, left his servants and cattle in the field."'" [Ex. 9:21]

In this verse and the previous we have a common grammatical difference between those who believe in Jesus Christ and those who do not. This is all but lost to us in the translations, even though the translations often make an attempt to translate this difference. We have two kinds of Egypians, those who are fearing the Word of Yahweh (the Qal active participle of yârê’) and those who are not setting their heart upon the Word of God (the Qal active participle of sûwm and the direct object lâbêb). Therein is not the contrast; the contrast is in their actions which follow. In v. 20, those who keep fearing God's Word cause their slaves to flee; the verb is the Hiphil perfect of nûwç (סנ) [pronounced noos] and their slaves are caused (Hiphil stem) to flee, perfect tense, completed action. Salvation and the results of salvation are a completed process. Once we believe in Jesus Christ, no matter what we do, we cannot lose the salvation which God provided for us on the cross by judging His Son our stead. The one who does not apply is heart to God's Word (whihc is a different set of words, but the same stem and tense) follows his unbelief up with action: the Qal imperfect of ‛âzab (ב ַז ָע) [pronounced aw-ZAB] and it means to leave, to forsake, to desert; the imperfect voice means that they continued to forsake their slaves and cattle out in the field. When we oppose God's Word, when we do not apply God's Word, when we do not set our hearts upon God's Word, our actions are continuous and despicable. Certainly it was cruel to desert their slaves and their cattle out in the field, thereby causing them to be killed by being hailed upon Their negative volition results in a continuous action (imperfect tense) of cruelty and sin. It is not that they had no regard for their slaves—at the very worst, their slaves were valuable property to them. But negative volition toward God's Word automatically causes people to do things which are elusively cruel. What I mean is, they did not leave their slaves and cattle out in the field with the intention of killing them; that was simply the promised result of not heeding God's Word. It had the exact same affect upon the slaves and the cattle had they done this with the intention of having them be killed. The exact same thing happens today. Let me give you a clear example. An unbelieving parent will not take his child to church or he will take his child to an apostate church. This unbelieving parent might love this child with a love as pure as can be, but the result of this unbelief, the child will never hear God's Word at an early age that he might ever have the chance to believe unto salvation and spend eternity in the lake of fire. This parent has deserted his child out in the field before a horrible hail storm. It is not intentional cruelty—no parent when they realize that absolute horror of the lake of fire would ever want their children to spend eternity there, but their actions have that same result.

These signs and wonders have evangelized the entire world, and there were some in Egypt who were also evangelized. It will be easy to spot those who have trusted in Yahweh and fear Yahweh; they will be the ones who still have live servants and cattle. This does require a great deal of trust also. Egypt is known for having very little rainfall. The coast of Egypt receives the most rain, which averages approximately eight inches a year; and you don't have to go very far inland before that drops to less than two inches per year. Not only is God telling them that there will be a storm, but it will be a deadly hail storm; a highly rare event. This is such an unusual event, so out of the ordinary (as some perhaps have never even seen a hail storm in their entire lives), that it requires continual trust in God's Word to perform the action which protects their slaves and their cattle.

If you are an unbeliever and are somehow exposed to this, you might be thinking well, if I would just see a miracle, a sign; then I would believe all this. This is not so. These Egyptians had seen sign after sign of God's tremendous power over the earth and some still did not believe. Even as a precaution, they could have thought to themselves, well, I just am not sure about this, but what can it hurt to bring my slaves and livestock in for a couple days. What can that really cost me except a little embarrassment if there is no hail storm and I will have had the chance to save my most valuable possessions. Listen: all you have to do to secure eternal salvation for yourself is to believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins; to place your trust in Jesus Christ as your only means of salvation, the only bridge between you and God. This act only takes a few seconds and this short few seconds out of your life, believing in Jesus Christ, has the final result of providing eternal salvation for you forever. How can you lose? There is no embarrassment even; and if you choose to renig on this faith, don't worry; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. (II Tim. 2:13) So maybe you are thinking, well, if God would just come down to earth and talk to me directly; then I would believe. There are two answers to that: (1) God is speaking to you directly right now and you know it; (2) God did come down to earth, presented every astonishing miracle and sign imaginable, and yet there were those who not only did they not believe in Jesus Christ, but, in their hatred and negative voltion toward God (and I am speaking of very religious men here), they persecuted our Lord, lying about him in illegal trials and taking turns punching Him. This is how some unbelievers react when they have the opportunity to see God in human form in their midst. Others just chose to ignore Him. You have no excuse. If we want to pursue this further into the philisophical realm, you might object saying, I don't want to believe in anything that I cannot see or touch. 70–99% of everything that you know is based upon faith; we are told certain things and we believe them. Just seeing pictures of England or even getting into a plane and flying to a place that you are told is England does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a place as England, our mother country, exists. It can be effectively argued that you are assuming those who took the photos are telling you the truth about what they photographed and those connected with the airline who know are actually delivering to a place which is really England. All the things that you know to be true, as reasonable as they seem, are still based upon things that someone has told you and you decided to believe. Even if God Himself manifested Himself to you in some form and spoke to you, would that prove that He was indeed God? It would not! There must be some faith from you; not much faith, just a little more than none at all. That faith must be directed toward Jesus Christ, God come in the flesh, and toward His saving work for you on the cross, where he took upon his own body the punishment that we deserved for all of our sins against God. We divide all of human history, believers and unbelievers alike, by the first advent of Jesus Christ. If you are concerned with intellectual integrity and reasonableness, I can guarentee you, (and I know that you will take offense at this, but I will say it anyway) as someone who is very likely smarter than you are—having been born that way, having had no choice in the matter—that there is no sacrifice in intellectual integrity to believe in Jesus Christ. There is no sacrifice of intellectual integrity to believe God's Word. If you have even a spark of interest, then merely say to God, if You are there, reveal yourself to me—I will then believe in Jesus Christ, your Son.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Stretch forth your hand toward the heavens that there may be hail in all the land of Egypt; on man and on beast and on every plant of the field in the land of Egypt." [Ex. 9:22]

Notice that Aaron is not weilding the staff this time, but Moses. This is very demonstrative, which was the way to convey what was going on in the ancient world. God wants as many as are within eyeshot to see Moses stretching his staff toward the heavens to preceed a hail storm unlike any hail storm in the history of Egypt.

So Moses stretched forth his his staff over the heavens and Yahweh gave forth thunderings and hail and there came fire [i.e., lightning] towards the earth, and Yahweh rained down hail on the land of Egypt. [Ex. 9:23]

The wording here is interesting. Moses was one of the most intelligent men who has ever lived; and one who had the proper training in all fields to develop this intelligence. However, it is possible that he did have a word for lightning. The word which is used here is the common word for fire, found several times throughout the Bible. This hail storm with lightning was such a rare occurance in Egypt that it is possible that they did not have a special word for it. Moses, being raised Egyptian and then living out in the desert, had no reason to know a word for lightning.

Likewise, the Hebrew word which I have translated thunderings is the nomnative masculine plural of qôl (לֹק) [pronounced kole], which means a voice, a sound. It is used of the human voice, of human speaking, of praises and outcries to God. There was not a specific word in the Hebrew for thunderings, as this was not an occurance which was described very often. Therefore, Moses borrowed this word and used it in context to mean thunder.

So there came to be hail and fire [lightning] flashing continually in the midst of the hail; exceedingly heavy, such as had not been in all the land of Egypt from the very time it became a nation. [Ex. 9:24]

Moses was privy to the historical records in the land of Egypt—his studies in the palace as a young man likely included some meteorlogical matters. He was being groomed to rule over the land of Egypt. His duties as the king over Egypt would deal day in and out with crop production, animal husbandry, flood control and building projects.. All of these areas are dependent upon the weather. So Moses knew something about the weather in Egypt—he knew, for instance, how many inches per years it rained in the various areas; he knew how often storms and rains. He knew the worst that could be expected; he knew the likely length of the average storm; he knew how often storms caused the Nile to overflow. And he knew in particular that in the entire time that Egypt had been a nation, keeping copious records of all things including the weather patterns—that there had never been a storm like this in Egypt before.

The second verb is a bit more difficult than most. It is the Hithpael participle, feminine singular construct of the verb lâqach (ח ַק ָל) [pronounced law-KAHK] generally means to take. However, it is only found twice in the Hithpael—here and Ezek. 1:4, both in connection with lightning during a storm. Many translators opt for a meaning far removed from the root word and believe it to mean flashing continually, or words to that effect. Some have been able to construct a meaning true to its original meaning. Many trnaslators translate this words as catching a hold of itself; that is, the slightining flashes and it is immediately followed by another burst of lightning; as though one came down, but on the way, grabbed another bolt of lightning, which in turn grabbed another bolt of lightning before it completely left heaven.

This, which is possibly the most natural miracle of all the plagues, receives a lot of literary attention from Moses. Having lived in Texas for quite a number of years, we take terrible storms for granted, although our hail storms are certainly not this destructive. But just as we will gab about a tremendous storm for hours with our co-workers; similarly, Moses cannot get over it and keeps repeating that this was an incredible storm with great bolts of lightning; one which followed another, one right after the other. Even though this is God's inspired Word, it is still written by the man Moses and the ferocity of this storm was one of the most incredible sights that he had ever seen.

Some people are deathly frightened by storms. One of this magnitude would be an awesome spectical. Moses is thoroughly enjoying this storm. He knows why the storm has been conjured up by God; he knows that God is in complete control of the storm—so Moses has the opportunity to sit back and watch it like fireworks on the 4th of July. There are a great many events which, if we were not related to the God of the universe, would be frightening an difficult to endure. However, with little more than normal precautions, a Christian can derive a great deal of pleasure and enjoyment from an intense storm.

And the hail smote, in all the land of Egypt, all that was in the field, both man and beast, and every plant of the field did the hail strike down and every tree of the field did it shatter [Ex. 9:25]

In the area in California that I grew up in, pea-sized hail was perhaps the largest that we had. In Texas, I have heard of, but luckily have never seen, golf ball sized hail to larger, which is extremely destructive. Here we are very likely talking about grapefruit-sized hail, one or two of which would knock down and possibly kill a large animal. In terms fo plants, the hail was so heavy and so continual that it that it destroyed entire trees. The use of the word all here means that the greater part is referred to. This figure of speech is called synecdoche [pronounced syn-EK-do-kee] of the genus. A synechdoche is very similar to a metonymy. A metonymy refers to the exchanging of two similar nouns, a synecdoche refers to the exchanging of two similar ideas. There are four basic types of synecdoches: the synecdoche of the genus (where the genus is put in for a species—Ex. 9:25 23:3, 26); the synecdoche of the species (where the species is put in for the genus—Isa. 53:12 Dan. 12:2); the synecdoche of the whole (where the whole is put in for the part—Ex. 20:12 Deut. 29:5 Zech. 5:3); and the synecdoche of the part (where the part is put in for the whole—Gen. 6:12 I Sam. 19:24). Each of these is further subdivided into a half a dozen sub-categories each. The verses quoted will be covered in exegesis as we come to them.

Only in the land of Goshen, where the sons of Israel were, was there no hail. [Ex. 9:26]

Some people might have a hard time with this, particularly those from huge valleys. In the California area, if it is raining relatively hard in Sacramento, then it will be rainig up and down the entire valley for hundreds of miles in both directions. However, in Houston, the storms can be quite specific. During a half hour drive to work, I have driven from good weather into a severe storm, back into good weather and then into a severe storm again, all within 15 miles of one another. I have observed one stretch of freeway for approximately a half a mile where it rained on one side of the freeway and it was clear on the other. Here we have a storm which surrounds Goshen, yet does not penetrate God's protection in Goshen. We as Christians are under the same wall of fire as Israel enjoyed. We are God's chosen people and God protects us and often those around us during the most horendous of crises.

Then Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and for Aaron and said to them, "I have sinned this time; Yahweh is the righteous one and I and my people are the wrong-doers. [Ex. 9:27]

Pharaoh is a sincere man. For several days he has observed the destruction of a storm as he has never seen before. He has been told time after time that such and such a plague will occur and then the plague occurs. When the Jews are specifically singled out as being protected from the plague, he sends his men to verify that. He is sincere, he is repentant, and he is confessing his sins to Moses. He is probably in hell right now. What he has not done yet is to put his faith in Yahweh, the God of Israel. He recognizes that Yahweh is righteous. There are millions of people, if pressed, would agree that Jesus Christ is (and they would say was) a good man, possibly even a prophet of God. Most of these people will spend eternity in the lake of fire, where the worm does not die (Mark 9:44, 46, 48).

"Make a request to Yahweh and it shall be enough, without there being anymore thunderings of God and hail; and I must release you and you will no longer remain [lit., stand]." [Ex. 9:28]

This was an intermittant storm, as many are. It would storm horrendously for several hours, then there would be respite. It would storm again, then an hour of quiet. During a period of quiet, Pharaoh sends for Moses and Aaron and pours out his soul to them. He confesses that he has been wrong and I think that we could safely conclude that he feels bad because he continually backs the wrong horse.

The word release has a cohortative conjunction, although in some contexts expresses a wish or a desire, here its meaning is that this is being done under compulsion. Pharaoh is saying that he realizes that he has no other choice.

Notice the contrast between this verse and v. 16. In v. 16, God has allowed Pharaoh to take a stand; to remain on earth, rather than to be quietly cut off (the word used, recall, was the Hiphil perfect of ‛âmad; here, Pharaoh used the Qal infinitive construct of the same word. This construction means that this action would be simultaneous with or soon after the action of the main verb (release) and the infinitive, with the lamed prefixed preposition denotes purpose, result, explanation, or (as in this case) an imminent event. If Pharaoh releases the people, then they no longer stand in Egypt.

To summarize the past few verses: we see the clear delineation between the sons of Israel and the Egyptians and it sounds as though the Pharaoh is truly repentent and has regretted his sins. He is using holy language and he is using it out of fear. He is trying to strap it on Moses and he is trying to strap it on God. The boxing analogy is so apt here. He has been stunned, but he's not out. So the Pharaoh will need to try another tact. This tact will be to act as though he is going to go along with what Moses has requested. Pharaoh is frightened, perhaps, and he has been sent reeling by the terrific thunder and lightning and hail storm. Few things can be a frightening as a storm of this magnitude; particularly to those who have never seen such a storm before. In California we experienced 7-12 inches of rain per year where a storm was a steady day or two of rain; when I latger moved to Houston, 50-60 inches of rain each year was the norm and a storm lasting for four hours, would not only deliver the same number of inches of rain as a two-day California storm, but it would be devastating and violent. After one storm in Houston, replete with downburst and wind shear, I recall one street in particular where every other house had a tree on it or in it. Around the corner from where I lived, there was a completely uprooted tree, approximately fifty foot long, laying from end to end on top of a neighbor's house. It is easy for me to understand how such a storm could frighten the Pharaoh of Egypt and fascinate Moses to the point where he repeats over and over again the drama of this storm.

And Moses said to him, "As soon as I have left the city, I will spread out my hand to Yahweh and the thunders will cease and the hail will be no more; that you may know that the earth is Yahweh's. [Ex. 9:29]

No where does Moses seem discouraged, nor does he seem taken in by Pharaoh's continual change of mind. A few weeks previous, Pharaoh promising to allow the Jews to leave and then renigging on that promise might have been a problem. Moses recognizes that God is in control of the universe and that Moses and the Jews are under His protection and guidance. Moses has developed a great faith in God during these experiences. You may think that you would too, if you were faced with signs and wonders as this. Not necessarily true. Aaron was with Moses the entire time, yet we will see him fail big time in the desert. He will participate in idolatry—this is the same Aaron who is a witness to all of these miracles and likely still accompanies Moses to the palace to speak to Pharaoh. The Jews themselves will be a grumbling, faithless generation that God will have to kill. Their sons and daughters, many of whom did not witness these events, will have the spiritual wherewithall to take the land.

"But, concerning you and your servants, I know that not yet will you stand in fear [and awe] of Yahweh Elohim." [Ex. 9:30]

Moses has become people-smart. When he was younger, he possibly had it, but remember, he has lived in the desert for forty years with people whom he knew quite well. He has gotten to know Pharaoh well enough and he knows God's Word well enough to realize that he is being placated. The Pharaoh is strapping him on. Pharaoh had not really changed his mind about God, Moses and the Jews; he was merely trying a new tact. Moses can see right through him and he tells the Pharaoh as much. Visualize that this conversation is taking place in the midst of the storm.

Now the flax and the barley were destroyed; for the barley [was] in the ear and the flax [was] in flower; however, the wheat and the spelt were not destroyed because they were not ripe. [Ex. 9:31-32]

Here is an interesting side light. This reveals the extent of Moses knowledge. I know that corn is in the field and it is planted, it grows, and then it is picked. I also suspect that there are different kinds of corn which mature more slowly. Bu that is all that I know about corn or any other vegetable that I eat. Moses can distinguish the vegetables from their plants, he knows when they ripen, when one is in ear and the others are in flower and when some are just beginning to grow. Moses did not have to even go out to a field to observe this. As training to become the king of Egypt, Moses had an exceptionally wide range of understanding. He has spent years at the University of Egypt under the very best of private tutors and occassionally in classes learning every aspect of the nation Israel. Knowledge of the crops was central to his study as this was a major part of the economic backbone of Egypt's economy. Furthermore, this is just one branch of knowledge that he possessed. He was very well-educated in many different fields. However, in case you are interested, it says right here, in Zodhiates Old Testament, that spelt (or rye) was a wild wheat which, on the one hand was more edible than barley; but on the other, inferior to wheat. Its harvest came after the harvest of the barley and it was difficult to separtae it from its chaff. It was from this grain that the Egyptians made their basic bread.

So Moses went away from Pharaoh, out of the city, and spread out his hands to Yahweh; then did the thunderings and the hail cease and rain was not poured out on the land. [Ex. 9:33]

Moses knows the drill. He simply appeals to Yahweh and God removes the plague of the storm forever from the land of Egypt. Although we are not told this here, angels are also observing every move that Moses makes and watching this incredible drama of God's deliverance of the Jews. In like fashion, they also watch the unfolding of the drama of our lives; our spiritual successes and our failures.

And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunderings had ceased, he again sinned, and made his heart dull [and heavy], he and his servants. [Ex. 9:34]

Ceased is in the perfect tense. The storms have stopped pretty much for good in Egypt. Pharaoh also sees a pattern. He notices that when he talks to Moses, the plague is removed and it is never reinstated. He was upset and sincere at first, but now, in retrospect, he realizes that Moses had requested taht God stop the storm forever and Yahweh has. Pharaoh has no personal character; he does not stand by his word. He sins and hardens his heart; he servants follow suit. Likely there was even a discussion among themselves after the storm had abated and they decided to go back on their word.

The Heart

This is a brief doctrine of the heart in order to ready ourselves to study the Hardness of Pharaoh's heart prior to the Exodus.

1. The Greek word is καρδία and the Hebrew word is lêb בל or lêbâb בבל. They both literally mean heart, the organ inside of us; however, they are never used that way.

2. The heart can have a negative attitude toward God. Psalm 101:5 uses the phrase "...arrogant heart."

3. The heart can feel emotion. "My heart has become smitten like grass (or, herbage) and has withered away." (Psalm 102:4a) "Wine, which makes my heart glad." (Psalm 104:15). In Acts 14:17b, we have the phrase, "...satisfy your heart with food and gladness." Therefore, our hearts an be satisfied with food and emotional stimulation.

4. God knows our hearts (Psalm 44:21 Luke 16:15); examines our hearts (I Thess. 2:4 Jer. 12:3); tries or tests our hearts (I Chron. 29:17); He prepares our heart (I Chron. 29:18), opens our heart (Acts 16:14), enlightens (???) and finally creates a new heart within us (Psalm 51:10 Ezek. 36:26).

5. Our hearts are capable of thinking or of thoughts (Heb. 4:12).

6. Our hearts can be strengthened and we can take courage in our hearts (this is a command, in fact—Psalm 27:14).

7. We are fools to trust our own heart (Prov. 28:26).

8. Without going into a full blown examination of the doctrine of the heart, suffice it to say that the heart is immaterial; it does our thinking, it emotes, it has a relationship to God (that is, God is most interested in what occurs in our hearts and has a direct affect upon our heart); it has volition or will; it can operate in a moral sphere (positive or negative); it can grieve and it can be broken. It appears to be the entire unseen function of our lives, directly related to our body and physical needs, but outside the realm of the physical.

And Pharaoh's heart was strengthened; [so] neither would he let the children of Israel go, as Yahwheh spoke by the hand of Moses. [Ex. 9:35]

Here we see the actual mechanics of the "hardening" of Pharaoh's heart. When Pharaoh's heart is made dull [and heavy}, this is what we understand as the hardening of his heart. This is a synonym for scar tissue. This is a build-up of negative volition toward God and God's plan. The strengthening of his heart is the power and fortitude to carry out its desires and wishes. It is Pharaoh who has sinned and has made himself negative toward God. God has both provided him the opportunity to express this negative volition and, on occasion, the strength when necessry to express this negative voliton.

This chapter ends on an interesting Hebrewism: ...as Yahweh spoke by the hand of Moses. The Pharaoh was not deaf and Moses had to give him hand signals. We use our hands to work and to express ourselves. There are some people who could not talk if you tied their hands behind their back. God worked through Moses and expressed Himself through Moses. That is the significance of this phrase.

Introduction: Chapter 10 contains the eighth and nineth plagues: the plague of the locusts, which receives a great deal of space; and the far more interesting darkness covering the land, which received less attention in terms of length.

Chapter 10 begins with what could have been a problem for some. However, we have covered the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, so we can breeze through this translation. It begins by God saying that "I have hardened [made heavy or dull] Pharaoh's heart." and this corresponds to our concept of scar tissue. However, what has occurred is that God has given Pharaoh the opportunity to express his negative volition, the strength to do so, and God has allowed Pharaoh to do so. Therefore, it appears that God has caused Pharaoh to be negative toward His plan; that Pharaoh is nothing but a pawn which God will sacrifice for the benefit of many others who would believe in Him. However, we know that God is not the author of sin; He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to the point of a changed mental attitude (II Peter 3:9b). So we cannot misinterpret what is being said here. Let's take this in points, because this cannot be overemphasized:

■ God is not the author of negative volition, nor will He change our positive volition into negative volition under any circumstance (II Pet. 3:9).

■ God has continually given Pharaoh the opportunity to change his mind (Ex. 8:10,29 9:5,18).

■ Pharaoh has, at best, tried to act as though he had changed his mind about God's plan; or he sincerely was upset over what transpired (Ex. 9:27, 28); however, as the characterizing proverb goes, he never said anything that he couldn't take back. I once knew a woman like that, but I digress.

■ God gave Pharaoh the opportunity to express his negative volition (Ex. 9:15-16).

■ God gave Pharaoh the strength to express his negative volition (Ex. 9:12 10:20, 27).

The Hebrew word used here is the Hiphil perfect of kâbad (ד ַב ָ) [pronounced kaw-BAD] and it means to make heavy, to burden, to weigh down. The Hiphil is the causative stem; however, in the Hebrew, the Hiphil does not necessarily refer to compulsion but also is a permissive stem

. The perfect tense refers to God's decrees from eternity past to allow Pharaoh to make these choices against Himself; and to bolster Pharaoh up when his strength begins to wain. God also gave a similar strength of conviction to those under Pharaoh. What Pharaoh needs in his time of trouble to give him the strength to continue to defy God is some yes-men who will agree with Pharaoh's opposition to the Lord. In eternity past, so that the lands throughout the mideastern and eartern world could be evangelized, God saw to it that Pharaoh would surround himself with loyal yes-men, who would agree heartily with his every decision and applaud, when necessary, these decisions.

This verb is followed by the lamed preposition and the substantive ma‛an (ן ַע ַמ) [pronounced MAH-an], a word denoting purpose or intent. With the lamed preposition, this could be translated for the sake of, on account of, to the intent of, or ino order that. It is also quite reasonable to render this word and its preposition with a simple that. The following verb reveals God's purpose here: the 1st person singular suffix, Qal passive participle of shîyth (חי ̣ש ) [pronounced sheeth] which normally means to set, to place, to put. God, although translated this way, it not the subject of this verb. Signs is the subject of this verb, and God, spoken of in the 1st person singular suffix, is the cause of these signs, which is why the verb is in the passive.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have allowed his heart to become dull [lit., I have caused his heart to become hardened (or made dull and heavy)], and the heart of his servants, that My signs might be placed in their midst. [Ex. 10:1]

In eternity past, God did a vast number of things in order to evangelize the earth. He saw to it that a Pharaoh would ascend to the throne of Egypt who was particularly negative toward God's plan. He surrounded that Pharaoh with yes-men. When Pharaoh became weak from opposing God, God gave him more strength to continue in his opposition to God. Finally, an important point often left out of a study of these chapters of Exodus: any time that God drastically changes his program (that is, a new dispensation is begun or a new portion of a dispensation is begun); God accompanies this change with a great many signs and wonders. Because our knowledge of things Biblical is sorely lacking, many people think that there are great and tremendous miracles found on every page of God's Word because they know a few stories about Moses, David and the first advent of our Lord. When it comes to great signs and wonders and miracles, there have been damn few of them in the past several thousand years; most of them came to introduce a new wrinkle on God's plan. Here, God was beginning nation Israel wand was identifying the Jews as His people. Therefore, He needed to do something spectacular to the entire world would know that God's hand was with the Jews. As a result of this, men from all over the world realized that God was with the Jews, that God had given them the land of Palestine, and that anyone who opposed the Jews would find themselves up against unsurmountable odds.

V.2 continues with the prepositional purpose clause from v. 1 (lamed + ma‛an). And I was expecting the same contruction and the same verb used in v. 1 repeated here, but there is another word which means to place, to set and it is the word sûwm (ם  ) [pronounced soom]. This time the verb is in the Qal perfect, 1st person singular, meaning that God is the subject of this verb. Ths is followed by the 2nd person singular, Qal perfect of yâda‛ (ע ַד ָי) [pronounced yaw-DAH], a verb which means to know by seeing. As we read the translation, keep in mind that God is speaking to Moses here:

And that you may recount in the ears of your son and your son's son what I did in derision of the Egyptians; and my signs which I placed among them, so you will know that I am Yahweh." [Ex. 10:2]

God clearly points out His purpose here, as He did previously in 9:15-16; these signs will evangelize the world and they evangelize Israel. They are to be told to the next generation and the generation after that. At that point in time, there was no widely distributed Bible; at best, Moses had documents whihc had been added to over the years at the writing of Exodus, which could have occurred at this time and could have occurred during the 40 years wandering in the desert. Moses wrote the first books of the Bible (with the possible exceptions of Job and Genesis; and we do not know where the former book was at this time, and the latter was probably one of a very few copies). Therefore, the primary method of passing on spiritual information is the oral tradition of a father teaching his son about Yahweh, the God of Israel and he in turn will teach his son. There were various events which took place to act as training aids, such as the bones of Joseph, to give parents the opportunity to express to their children what has occurred up until their slavery in Egypt. We as parents should do the same; we should teach our children about Who Jesus Christ is and why He came to earth in the form of a man. There is no substitute for parental training.

One of the few advantages of the KJV, besides being an excellent but dated transaltion, is that they distinguish between the singular and plural second person. We simply use the word you to represent the singular or the plural. The south has tried to clear up this little problem, adding the descriptor all to the plural sense of you, however, this has never caught on outside of the south. V. 2 begins with you in the singular. Each individual Jew (represented here by Moses, as God is speaking directly to Moses) will tell his son in the future about the exodus and the great signs and wonders which God performed. However, at the end of v. 2, when God says "...that you may know...", you is in the plural—speaking to all of Israel. The significance of this is emphasis. When we move from the singular to the plural, it is a way of the speaker, in this case our Lord, grabbing us by the collar and shaking us. It is a way to grab one's attention linguistically.

And Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh and said to him, "Thus says Yahweh, God of the Hebrews, 'How long have you refused to humble yourself before Me? Release my people that they may serve Me.'" [Ex. 10:3]

In the midst of all these signs, God is very careful to let Pharaoh know that He is the God of the Hebrews. Since so many countries had their own pantheon of gods, God has to distinguish Himself from them and show that He is the true God of the Universe.

But if you are refusing to let them go, watch [lit. behold]! I will bring in tomorrow a locust within your boundaries; [Ex. 10:4]

The locust was known to Egypt, however, never in such huge numbers have they been seen.

In v. 5, there is some figurative language which is rarely translated literallyyet the figure of speech is easily understood. The locust will cover the ‛ayin (ן ̣י ַע) [pronounced AH-yim] of the land. ‛Ayim means eyes. Too often this is ignored or translated face. At the end of the verse, some translations have the locust eating up the trees which grow in the field. This leaves us with some confusion—locusts do not generally eat entire trees, to the best of my knowledge (which is limited in the locust realm); plus we have just seen a devasting hail storm which likely destroyed the trees of the field. The word we find here is tsâmach (ח ַמ ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-MAKH], and this means to sprout up.

Furthermore, it [the locust] shall cover the eye of the land so that one shall not be able to see the land.; and it shall eat the remainder that has escaped, that is left you from the hail, and it shall eat up all the trees that sprout for you out of the field. [Ex. 10:5]

God treats the locust as though they were in the singular. It is one miracle and they act in one accord; to destroy and ravage the land of Egypt. The language is beautiful; the eye of the land is covered so that the one in the land cannot see out and those out of the land cannot see in; the locusts will be this thick.

What remains in the land after the hail is sprouts of plants returning from the ground; some of them seedlings, some of them the same splants which had been beaten down by the hail.

And they will fill your house and the houses of all your servants, and the houses of all the Egyptians, such as your fathers and your father's fathers have never seen, from the day they came to be on thie land, until this day.'" And he turned away and came out from the presence of Pharaoh. [Ex. 10:6]

We are now using the plural of locust. Out in the field, as they observe, it will look as one great locust; eating the eentire field. However, when these locust move in doors, there will be thousands upon thousands of locusts, everywhere the inhabitants look.

Note this is Moses, again, who is speaking to Pharaoh, and Aaron is there almost as nothing but window dressing. Although we began with Moses and Aaron in v. 3, here, God does not say that they both walked out; but that Moses walked out. Aaron did not remain there—he didn't stick around to have coffee and donuts with Pharaoh—it is just that his presence was superfluous. He was not God's chosen man for the job of going to speak to Pharaoh and he never was. He just happened to be there to hold Moses' hand throughout the proceedings, which was not God's original intention. God has a plan for Aaron's life; but speaking to Pharaoh in His behalf is not it; that is God's plan for Moses. This is analogous to our spiritual gifts in the church age; we all have spiritual gifts and we cannot behave as though our spiritual gifts are different than those which we have received. There are some people who are pastor-teachers who ought not be (I sound like J. Vernon McGee). Thieme once related the story of Billy Graham who originally pastored a church and in a meeting with the deacons said that his gift was one of evangelism, not pastoring a church and they agreed and that was the direction that he took. It retrospect, it is obvious that is his place in God's plan. Isn't it amazing the various types of application that we can get from the Old Testament? Just the use of a singular here instead of a plural introduces a New Testament concept.

Then said the servants of Pharaoh to him, "How long shall this man become a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve Yahweh, their God. Don't you realize even yet that Egypt is ruined?" [Ex. 10:7]

All of a sudden there is some dissention among Pharaoh's yes-men. This does not mean that Pharaoh's entire court was in favor of letting the Jews go; however, it is more than just one man's opinion. The speaker obviously believes God because the plague has not yet come; the plague of the locusts is not until the next day. But they have come to realize that what Moses says God will do, He does. Whether they have believed in Yahweh or not is another matter; but they have come to accept the power and Word of Yahweh. There is no doubt in their minds that this plague will occur as Moses has told them and that Egypt is in veritable economic ruin already. Furthermore, after suffering the lice and the frogs and the stinging flies, these men do not want their households invaded by locusts.

So Moses and Aaron were brought back into Pharaoh and he said to them, "Go, serve Yahweh, your God. Just exactly who [lit., "who and who"] are going?" [Ex. 10:8]

This is the first time that Pharaoh has capitulated prior to the occurance of the plague. He is weakening. His court of yes-men has begun to hold a variety of opinions, the majority this time favoring to skip this plague and to let the children of Israel go. After an hour's conference, Moses and Aaron are sent for and are brought back before Pharaoh. They were not originally placed in the waiting room to allow for discussion—the discussion was spontaneous, beginning immediately at their leaving. The servants of Pharaoh are no longer interested in bolstering up Pharaoh's opinion and standing by him; they are sick of the destruction and personal pain and discomfort that they have had to endure.

None of Pharaoh's servants have gone so far as to realize that if the God of the Jews can do what He has done, then He is the true God of the Universe and that they ought to believe in Him and to join the Jews in this trek into the desert to worship God. We have the exact same thing occuring today. We have unbelievers refusing to believe in Jesus Christ because they are worried that it might disrupt their puny lives; in their frantic search for happiness, they are worried that they might not eek as much of it out if they turn toward God. Believers have a similar problem. Believers tend to attend church once or twice a week and never lead a life the rest of the time which is honoring to God. To be fair, this is sometimes not their fault; if their church does not teach them how to rebound (confess their sins to God), then they are out of fellowship from ten minutes after they were first saved to the end of their lives. Once and awhile, during a re-dedication service (which is bogus), they, among other things, confess their sins. They have been outside of the power of the Holy Spirit for so long that it is an emotional uplifting and for sometimes as long as 30 minutes, they stay in fellowship. However, when they fall out of it, they behave, at best, like self-righteous, religious unbelievers now. Pharaoh's servants needed to follow through; they needed to gather their families and join with the Jews. We need to lead our lives as though God has a true impact on them. We are not going to miss anything worthwhile by doing so.

And Moses said, "With our young and with our old will we go; with our sons and with our daughters; with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for the festival of Yahweh is ours [lit., to us]." [Ex. 10:9]

Moses now lays down the law; he tells Pharaoh exactly who will go and how they will travel. As of this point in time, they are still only to go out to the desert and have a feast to God. Nothing is said about them leaving Egypt for good. That is on the agenda, but not yet. Pharaoh had earlier expressed his opinions as to these matters (Ex. 8:25–29) but his conditions were not acceptable. Moses will tell him what is acceptable.

Then he said to them, "Let Yahweh so be with you when I release you and your little ones. Look [out], for harm [is] before you faces." [Ex. 10:10]

V. 10 is not readily understood. I've given a literal translation. Look is the 2nd masculine plural, Qal imperative of the simple verb to see. As we have seen, there is the masculine and the feminine of the word evil; the feminine is not as intense and often means harm. So just exactly what is Pharaoh saying? Let's see if I can paraphrase this: God better be with you if I think that I will release you and your little ones. You are in serious trouble to even suggest these things. The NASB gives a better idea of what Pharaoh has said: "Thus may the Lord be with you if I ever let you and your little ones go. Take heed, for evil is in your mind [lit., before your face]." It is idiomatic. Today, we might say, It will be a cold day in hell before I let you and your little ones go. You had better be careful with foolish thoughts like that. As you see, translators have a very difficult time of it. If translated word for word, this verse makes little sense (apart from context, which helps to guide us here); yet when the idiom is translated freely, then it is not a translation, per se, but an interpretation. We are fortunate to live in a time when God's Word has been translatd by fifty different individuals and groups. We learn which translations are literal and which interprest the idioms and can guide ourselves and our studies accordingly. Pharaoh already had it in his mind that the men only would go out to make this feast (or whatever they were going to do); and it would be nearby; and the children and wives would remain to guarantee the return of the Jews. Pharaoh feels that he is like the company president who has been beaten down by a strike, is prepared to listen to some reasonable demands, and is faced with a dozen totally unreasonable demands. The main difference here is that Pharaoh is in the wrong.

"This is not going to happen [or, no way is this going to happen; lit., not so]! Go, I pray you, you grown men, and serve Yahweh, for that is what you were seeking." And they were driven from the presence of Pharaoh. [Ex. 10:11]

Pharaoh cannot let the Jews go. He has to hold the children hostage. Moses anticipated Pharaoh's objections and began by saying "With our young..."

What Pharaoh does not want to do is (1) lose the upper hand and (2) lose the Jews as slaves. He is the ruler of Egypt and he is willing to make certain allowances for Moses and Aaron; but these allowances are going to be temporary. I do have a question which bothered me for some time: why did God originally tell Moses to take the people out temporarily, when this was to be a permanent status? God would not lie and He would not act as though He was going to do one thing and then do another. He didn't need to do that. So let's take this in points:

2. When it comes to eternal salvation, we may at any time in our lives simply believe in Jesus Christ and we are saved forever

4. What God offered Pharaoh at first was a reasonable demand—allow the Jews to go out to the desert and worship Him for a period of three days

5. Had Pharaoh at any time during the first eight plagues, allowed the Jews to go to the desert without any conditions, then God would have only required the Jews to go out to the desert to worship Him and then they would have voluntarily returned to slavery

6. Just because God knows the outcome, does not mean that His early offers are not valid

7. Sometimes the police will pull a sting operation on someone they know to be a felon, but cannot prove. This alleged felon can at any time get out easy by walking away from the criminal activity. The police generally know in advance that he will react to the sting by joining into criminal activity, but the ability to walk away from the crime in the first place is there.

8. There was (and probably still is) an investigative service for husbands and wives—they would set up one of the two with an opportunity for infidelity and photographically record the results. The husband is subjected to this because the wife believes that he will fail a test of fidelity; however, he can walk away from this at any time and he has passed the test.

9. God has offered Pharaoh a simple demand, that, had he accepted Yahweh's conditions, then he would have been able to retain his slave population

10. Since he did not allow the Jews to leave temporarily to worship God, he will place himself in a position where they will have no choice but to exodus from the country—he will personally see to that.

Then said Yahweh to Mosts; stretch forth your hand over the land of Egypt for the locust that it may come up over the land of Egypt; and may eat up every plant of the land; all that the hail has left." [Ex. 10:12]

Notice that no longer is God having Moses to tell Aaron to stretch his staff over the land but now Moses is doing that. This was God's original plan; Moses just wasn't ready for it; so they went to plan B. However, Moses just slowly assumed a position of complete leadership and Aaron tagged along.

I've noticed a slight variation in renditions of v. 13. The verb attatched to Yahweh is the 3rd masculine singular, Piel perfect of nâhag (ג ַה ָנ) [pronounced naw-HAG] and it means to lead, to guide. The piel is the intensive stem because this was a strong, concentrated wind—a very particular wind in fact; driven with a purpose. The perfect voice indicates completed action. God gathered up all of the locusts and, in the space of a few hours, deposited them all upon the land of Egypt.

And Moses stretched forth his staff over the land of Egypt and Yahweh led an east wind upon the land, all that day and all the night; when the morning had come to pass, the east wind had brought the locusts. [Ex. 10:13]

The second sentence is interesting. Wind is in the construct, so it is more of a modifier of east than the other way around. However, I don't know of a way to translate that. East is the subject of the second sentence and the verb is the Qal perfect of nâsâ’ (א ָ ַנ) [pronounced naw-SAW]. Nâsâ’ means to lift, to carry, to take. The perfect tense is that of completed action, so I have translated this had brought.

It is interesting how God performs these miracles. He did not create these locusts out of nothing. They were all elsewhere at this time, possibly scattered, possibly altogether. God picks them all up from wherever they happen to be in the orient and captures them in the wind and blows them all over into Egypt. There is no doubt that this is supernatural and there is no doub that God could have, in an instant, created the locusts, but He chose not to. He obviously prepared the locusts elsewhere and brought them to Egypt when the time was right.

And the locust came up over all the land of Egypt and settled within all the territory [or, boundaries] of Egypt; [They were] extremely numerous! Before this had not been such a locust as that and neither after this should there be one like it. [Ex. 10:14]

An adjective and a pronoun are used to describe the locusts in v. 14. The adverb is actually the masculine noun m^e’ôd (דֹא ׃מ ) [pronounced meh-ODE] and it means muchness, force, abundance, however, it can act as a suiperlative, acting as an adverb meaning exceedingly, very. I would not be surprised if these were not different words with similar meanings, both pronounced and written alike, but context determines whether the word is the noun or the adverb. The adjective it modifies is kâbêd (ד ֵב ָ) [pronounced kaw-BADE] and it generally means heavy, but it can also mean numerous, which is the sense in which it is used here. There is no noun or a verb to go with this, meaning that there is great emphasis placed upon these two words. They are standing out in the middle of two sentences screaming at us. Throughout this verse, locust is in the singular. If you have a difficult time with that, then translate this swarm [of locusts], and you have an English equivalent when it comes to number.

When describing that this has never occurred before and would never occur again, we have two negatives and the same verb, modified by the same adverb. The verb is our old friend, hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] which is likely the most commonly used verb in the Old Testament. The New Englishman's Hebrew Concordance only lists a few of the passages in which it occurs, by way of illustration. It means to be, to come to pass. Hâyâh first occurs in the Qal perfect and then in the Qal imperfect. The modifying adverb is the very commonly used kên (ן ֵ) [pronounced ken] and its basic meaning is so. However, that meaning is somewhat amplified by nearly four columns in BDB. It can mean rightly, just, afterwards, depending upon its context. It refers mostly to manner, but it also refers to degree, quantity, or quality. Literally, this verse is: Before it [the locust swarm] so there has never been a swarm [of locusts] like it and after it, so [such a swarm] will never come to pass. In throwing in those bracketed words, obviously, they are not a part of the literal translation, but thrown in to smooth out and convey the meaning of the literal translation.

So it covered the eye of all the land and the land was darkened and it did eat every plant of the land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left; not a green thing, nor a tree, nor a plant of the field remained in all the land of Egypt. [Ex. 10:15]

Again, the locusts are treated as one as they act with one accord, ravaging the land of Egypt. Only a very small portion of Egypt is fertile; that which receives its water from the Nile, Egypt's lifeblood, and this is where the locusts settled and decimated the land. Here is where all their farms were and every bit of shrubery was eaten; at least all the new growth (the green portions). What is left is barren land and barren trees. Every bit of new growth has been stripped off of it. The way Moses speaks of this in retrospect indicates that the concentration of these locusts was far greaer than the concentration of the gnats or the blood-sucking gad flies.

Then hastened Pharaoh to call fror Moses and Aaron and said, "I have sinned against Yahweh, your God, and against you." [Ex. 10:16]

I do not doubt that the Pharaoh is very sincere with this plea. A criminal, when faced with a great deal of time in jail or with the death sentence can become very sincerely sorry that they have done what they've done. I heard a news show where a drug dealer found that he was going into jail for a mandatory 15 years and he said he learned his lesson and really thought that he could have learned it in 5 years. This was prior to going into jail. You could tell by his voice that he was very sorry that he did what he did. He did not feel that what he did was all that wrong, but he was certainly unhappy about the consequences, and he was very sorry about that. People who are wrong, when faced with the consequences are suddenly very sorry for what has happened; but they are mostly sorry about the consequences.

"Now, therefore, forgive, I pray you, my sin only this one time, and make supplication to Yahweh, your God, that He may take away from me at least this death." [Ex. 10:17]

The word for "forgive" in this verse is nâsâw (א ָש ָנ) [pronounced naw-SAW], in the Kal imperative. The root meaning is "to lift up." and it means "to bear, to take, to take away guilt." "Take" if the Hiphil future (causative future) of çûwr (ר  ס) (pronounced soor), and it means to depart, turn aside or away. The causative means that Pharaoh wants God to cause his sin to depart from him. Pharaoh is not as concerned with the guilt or the wrongness of what he has done, as he is with the result. This is the only way to control criminals. They may be beyond the point at which they realize their crime is morally wrong; but they do understand negative consequences applied to their life. Pharaoh understands not so much that he is wrong, but that their are some very unpleasant results; he wants God to lift away his sin or remove the guilt (or in this case, the judgement) for his sin, and then God is to cause to depart from Pharaoh, this death, referring to the wholesale destruction of the land. This is a metonymy where the word death stands for plague; death is the result of the plague of the locust. This is not the result of the pangs of conscience but it is the result of the discipline under which the Pharaoh finds himself.

This is why we discipline children. They do not come to us with a blank slate, as some maintain, but they have genetic predispositions, they have learned behavior and they have an old sin nature which is full blown at birth. Discipline connects pain and discomfort with incorrect behavior. This helps to develop a conscience. Actually, so there is no misunderstanding, the discipline coupled with an explanation as to why they are being disciplined develops a conscience. A child needs to know what is right and wrong and needs to have this taught to him, even if it requires spanking (which is different from physical and emotional abuse). It is a parent's duty to discipline a child and if you are unable to discipline a child or would want to spank them for every infraction that they commit, then you have no business bringing a child into the world. A child will develop true self exteem and have the best possible peer interaction if he is brought up to be polite, considerate and well-behaved. A child needs to learn respect for his elders, his peers, for the property of others; a child needs to know the value of hard work and achievement. Self-esteem for its own sake is worthless and does nothing but spoil the child.

So he [Moses] came out from Pharaoh and made supplication to Yahweh and Yahweh turned back an exceedingly strong west wind and carried away the locust [swarm] and cast it into the Red Sea; so that there was not left a single locust in all the boundaries of Egypt. [Ex. 10:18–19]

God directed the movement of millions upon millions of locusts as if they were one, therefore we have the use of the singular when referring to the locusts. This is an unusual result; usually when God removed a plague, there were some residual effects. Here, although all of the greenery had been eaten, there are no dead locusts to deal with. God picked them up with the wind, the same way that He brought them, and deposited them this time into the Red Sea.

But Yahweh strengthened the Pharaoh's heart and he did not let the sons of Israel go. [Ex. 10:20]

Only Moses is mentioned when it comes to leaving Pharaoh and making supplication to God, but certainly Aaron was there. Finally, even though he was devastated because God just economically destroyed Egypt for several more decades, God gives Pharaoh the strength to express the contents of his soul. Pharaoh is not a man who recognizes his sin and desires that God forgive him; he recognizes the consequences or the disicpline because he has sinned and that is the only thing which bothers him. Having sinned once or twice myself in the past and then getting tremendous deserved discipline for it, I can assure you that I also have been very interested in the removal of the discipline. In some areas, it is the discipline which has helped me to recognize the depravitiy of my actions. However, Pharaoh only sees the discipline and has not moved from there to the correction of his behavior. God has given him enough stregnth to express that which is in his soul, and he does.

Then said Yahweh to Moses, "Stretch forth your hand over the heavens that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt; and that one may feel the darkenss." [Ex. 10:21]

Egypt was under severe judgement for their attitude toward the Jews. Darkness is often associated with judgement. When our Lord Jesus Christ bore our sins in His body on the tree, a thick darkness covered the land so that we could not see Him bearing our sins. With darkness, there would be some who would just sleep in and they might sleep in an extra hour; and, in some unusaly cases, an extra five hours. But at some point in time, it would be obvious that the night went on too long.

So Moses stretched forth his hand over the heavesn and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. [Ex. 10:22]

We do not know when this occurred. The implication is that Moses, when he stretched his hand out over the land, then the darkness covered the land. The notion of being in darkness for three days must have some kind of significance. Jonah was inside the whale (actually, the great fish) for three days and nights; our Lord was in the heart of the earth for three days and nights, and here Egypt is plunged into darkness for the same amount of time. I don't know what the connection is exactly yet, other than all of them involve God's judgment.

They saw not one another, neither did they arise from his place in which he stood for three days, but all the sons of Israel had light in their dwellings. [Ex. 10:23]

Certainly the same scenario as has occurred in the past was repeated. Moses went to Pharaoh, gave him a warning, and, when Pharaoh did not heed the warning, Moses brought on the plauge. This darkness is a thick darkness which you can feel; a darkness which cannot be penetrated by light; just like the darkness which hung over the cross. This gave each and every Egyptian, living in a land which has been economically ruined, having suffered pain and misery due to the plauges brought on by Jesus Christ by the hand of Moses, the time to reflect upon their lives. The darkness was thick and eerie, not allowing any kind of normal function in life. Most Egyptians just cowered in their homes, steeped in their negative volition, refusing to rise above it.

A portion of v. 23 is difficult to understand, making it difficult to interpret. We begin with the negative and the 3rd person plural, Qal perfect of qûwm (םק) [pronounced koom] and this means to stand, to rise up, to take a stand. This is followed by the preposition min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min] which means from. Then we have the very unusual word tachath (ת ַח ַ) [pronounced TAHK-ath], which means, as a substantive, the under part, beneath, the place in which one stands, in one's place. We are not talking about a physical movement. The Egyptians, as well as Pharaoh, have taken a stand and they are not rising above that stand. Because of the plagues and their negative volition, the Egyptians occupy a very low place. They have chosen that which is against God, which is their stand and they will not arise from that stand. We do not have the simply Hebrew phrase saying that they did not leave their homes nor do we have the simple phrase saying that they did not arise from their beds (the Hebrew words are very different). This is idiomatic; it can refer to not getting up from the under part, but it really means that they had all this time to contemplate in the dark where they stood, what their values were, Who and What God is and they would not arise from this lowly place where their negative volition had put them. Even though the verb is in the 3rd masculine plural, indicating that the population of Egypt in general did not arise, place (or, place in which he stood) has a 3rd person, singular suffix, indicating individual volition.

The Egyptians did have a god; thier sun-god, Ra. However, he was not able to do much on their behalf. God here is giving the entire population of Egypt time to reconsider the thoughts of their hearts, the prejudices that they might carry; and, particularly, their negative volition toward God. Some already had made a choice to stand with the sons of Israel and this allowed them to firm up this decision; others could go in either direction and this gave them time to make their choice. This is their last chance before God places over Egypt the most terrible plague.

This passage gives us two analogies. The unbelievers, the Egyptians, are walking and living in darkness. Believers, the sons of Israel, are walking in light. The Israelites have light in their dwellings. The Egyptians cannot penetrate this darkness with light. They should go to the light, to the Israelites, and ultimately to God, Who is judging them. They have three days to reconsider their position. A few did, which we will see later. However, most did not.

Man sometimes comes close to apprehending the truth as an unbeliever. Plato once gave us the analogy of the cave; he pointed out that there is a great unseen world—which is, in face, the real world that we live in. He deduced this simply because his soul was far greater than his body and he recognized this invisible existence. He deduced that what was invisible was far more important and far more real than the physical plane that we live in. Plato set up his analogy of the cave; that we live on this earth in a cave and the real world is outside the cave. All that we see are the shadows on the cave wall; shadows of reality, and we attempt to deduce from the shadows what reality is. For an unbeliever living in darkness, this is very close to reality. The unbeliever leads a life in darkness; God must be revealed to him. The, if he's interested, Jesus Christ must be revealed to him. Until that time, there is no light, no reality for the unbeliever, just the shadows on the cave wall; the shadows which are a poor representation of reality. So Plato comes close in his analogy to the truth and much of his philosophy comes close, considering that he is an unbeliever. However, since he did come so close to the truth, the Catholic church absorbed much of his thinking and it is reflected in their early doctrine.

The second analogy is even more solemn: Jesus Christ, when He was judged for our sins, was given the privacy of darkness as he took each and every one of our sins on Himself and sufferred the pain and discipline for these sins. As God's "first-born," He would die on our behalf, for our deliverance, just as the deaths of the first-born of Egypt would allow for the deliverance of the Hebrews out from the land of Egypt and the hand of Pharaoh.

Then Pharaoh called out to Moses and said, "Go serve Yahweh; only your flocks and your herds shall be left; even your little ones will go with you." [Ex. 10:24]

Pharaoh has not changed his tact nor is he concerned that he has sinned against the living God. He still expects to keep these slaves. You must realize that his country is in terrific economic chaos and Egypt will suffer for several decades after this; and Pharaoh realizes that he will require labor to clean up the mess and to begin anew. This will be the function of his Jewish slaves. Therefore, he is not going to let them go entirely. He must hold something for ransom. And if they do go, then he will need food stuffs for his own people. Pharaoh does not yet recognize that there is only one way that this will be done; it will be done in God's way in God's time. He can fight Yahweh as much as he wants, but God will prevail. Greater is He Who is in us and he who is in the world.

And Moses said, "Even you yourself will give into our hands sacrifices and ascending offerings; so shall we present offerings to Yahweh, our God. [Ex. 10:25]

The Jews will require animals to sacrifice to God and the Egyptians will give these animals to them.

Furthermore, our own cattle will also go with us; there shall not be a hoof left behind for that we must take to serve Yahweh our God; even we ourselves cannot know exactly what we will serve Yahweh until we actually arrive there." [Ex. 10:26]

Moses must take the cattle because there will be blood sacrifices to Yahweh. At that point in time, there were no set sacrifices delineated as they will be in the Law. The Jews have not sacrificed to God for perhaps a couple or more centuries, so Moses knows that they must take a lot of cattle and a lot of animals to sacrifice to Yahweh when it is necessary; he just does not know how many cattle will be sacrificed.

And Yahweh strengthened Pharaoh's heart and he was not willing to let them go. [Ex. 10:27]

There is not a lot of detail concerning the darkness; not the original confrontation between Pharaoh and Moses nor the promise to remove the darkness, nor the prayer to God to remove this darkness. All of these things occurred and once the darkness had lifted, Pharaoh went back on his promise, as God gave him enough strength to be negative. God did not cause Pharaoh to be negative; God gave Pharaoh enough strength to take his stand against God. This is not unusual. Madelyn Murray O'Hair, the famous atheist, fought God all of her life; God still gave her the ability to breath, to walk, to take a stand against Him. Her very existence required that God provide for her needs and He did. God allows for those who oppose Him the strength to do so—he does not strike them down. In the case of Ms. O'Hair, her son came to the Lord out of darkness. We will see that some, not many, of these Egyptians will come to God out of Darkness.

So Pharaoh said to him, "Get away from me; and listen to this warning: do not appear before my face anymore because the day that you see my face, [in that day] you will die." [Ex. 10:28]

I have given v. 28 a freer translation to clarify its meaning. Threats do not translate well, if thery involve the use of idiom or convoluted sentence structure. It is a threat. A more literal translation would be less literal. That is, a strong threat such as this can get lost in the language. Word-for-word, this might be translated then Pharaoh said to him, "Get away from me. Take heed to yourself—never again see my face for in the day you see my face, [in that day] you will die." Pharaoh is constantly running into Moses and Moses is constantly giving him warnings and promises of plagues. Pharaoh could have attempted to kill Moses right then and there. What he is doing is making a threat which he may or may not intend to keep. It is made in the heat of his discussion with Moses. Pharaoh is looking to make a compromise and does not fully realize that there is no compromise to be made with God. The Pharaoh does not have a choice one way or the other. He either rides the wave of God's plan or he is drown by it. Pharaoh only feigns positive volition, but that is, at best, a weak moment in his life.

And Moses said, "You have spoken well; for I will never again see your face." [Ex. 10:28]

Introduction: Chapter 11 presents the greatest and most vicious plague (from the perspective of human viewpoint) is about to occur. God will kill the firstborn of all the Egyptians.

God by taking the lives of the firstborn actually provides a large number of Egyptian infants with the equivalence of eternal salvation in heaven. These are children who would otherwise be raised as heathen, anti-God and anti-Jew, and then spend eternity burning in hell. God will be saving those of this group who are very young, because when a child is unable to make a choice for or against God in the angelic conflict due to age, and dies, there is no issue here to be resolved and God keeps him. When an unbelieving couple loses a child, we generally see this as a devastating tragedy—however, that child will spend eternity with God because his volition is not an issue. This is not to say (I am now addressing the 1/100^th of 1%) that Christians should have anything to do with the deaths of the children of unbelievers. Some unbelievers have children who grow up the be phenomenal Christians. Paul's parents were probably unbelievers.

And Yahweh had said to Moses [literally, then said Yahweh to Moses], "Yet one plague will I bring in upon Pharaoh and to Egypt; after that, he will let you go from here. When he does let you go, he will altogether drive you out from there. [Ex. 11:1]

The firstborn of the Egyptians were dedicated to their gods. This plague, like the previous plagues, will be directed against Pharaoh and against the gods (demons) of Egypt (Ex. 12:12)

Speak, I ask you, in the ears of the people and let them ask every man of his neighbor and every woman of her neighbor, articles of silver and articles of gold." [Ex. 11:2]

God again tells Moses exactly what will occur. There have been no surprises in God's plan for Moses, once he has accepted his place in it. Moses will adapt to the fact that God is always right and that he will have to trust him. This is important because he is going to lead the most whiny, reversionistic group of people for forty years; people who will malign him and rebell against him; who will express remorse because they are no longer under tyrannical slavery; and Moses has to keep his bearings under these presssures. A lessor man (almost anyone else) would have left the people to die in the desert. God will essentially offer Moses that opportunity and Moses will, as a result of trusting God and His long-term plan, pray on behalf of the degenerate Jews and preserve them. But that is a preview of coming attractions. The point is that Moses has found his place in God's plan and he is learning, step by step, to trust God in this decision. As one of the most important Old Testament saints with responsisbilities almost unheard of, this is absolutely necessary.

The Jews have been slaves for 200 years in the land of Egypt. Although, even under slavery, their original life was god and they prospered and multiplied and were even allowed their own homes, cattle and places to live in most instances, they were still slaves, which meant that they were not properly recompensed for their work. What is asked for here are much less than reasonable wages for two hundred years of servitude.

You might wonder why the Egyptians do not despise Moses because of all the plagues and pain he has brought them. Many of them recognize his power under God's hand and, if they do not believe in Yahweh is the only God of the universe, they have come to respect Him as the most powerful God of the universe, and therefore, they also have come to respect Moses as His servant. They know what is occurring. God threatens to bring a plague on Egypt and the Pharaoh is given the chance to submit to God's will, but he does not. The Egyptins recognize that if Pharaoh allows the Jews to leave Egypt, then they will no longer suffer these plagues. So many of them see Pharaoh as being the source of these plagues. This is not the same thing which occurs in a hostage situtation, but it is akin to it. Some hostages will come to respect those who have taken them hostage and look upon those on the outside as enemies. No analogy is being drawn here, becuase, in case this is not clear, there is nothing right about taking a hostage ever in a revolutionary or criminal act; I just give this illustration to help you to understand why the Egyptians respected Moses rather than loathed him. It is also important to recognize that this is not each and every Egyptian. Certainly, the Egyptians were strongly divided as to how they felt concerning Moses, Pharaoh and these horrible plagues. Certainly, it would set family member at odds with family member, neighbor against neighbor. However, God has a plan for the Jews and they have some cognizance of who is sympathetic and who is not. They know who to go to. ask for proper remuneration. They are not begging for money nor is their hand out like a man on the street alleging that he will work for food. They are asking for far less than what is rightfully theirs.

For hundreds of years, there will be no cross, no death on our behalf to deliver us from our bondage to sin. In order for man to recognize this and apprehend it, God has directed many events in history to illustrate what would occur. Noah's ark illustrates God's provision and deliverance. The exodus from Egypt illustrates Jesus Christ's sufferring on the cross on our behalf. The animal sacrifices illustrate the death of the innocent and unblemished to take away our sins. God allowed certain events in history to occur so that those who lived prior to the cross would be allowed to see the cross and to believe in Jesus Christ for their eternal salvation.

And Yahweh gave grace to the people in the eyes of the Egyptians—even the man Moses, himself was highly esteemed [or, exceedingly great] in the land of Egypt—both in the eyes of Pharaoh's servants and in the eyes of the people. [Ex. 11:3]

The word describing Moses in v. 3 is the adjective gâdôwl (לד ָ) [pronounced gaw-DOLE] and it means great. It is used for great in number, great in wealth or magnitude, obviously not applicable, here; and it is used of particular men, such as David, Mordecai and Moses, to indicate greatness. This means that the people recognized their greatness, their power, and their position. A modern equivalent would be esteemed. Note this is Moses and not Aaron who we are talking about. The adverb m^e’ûd (דֹא ׃מ) [pronounced meh-ODE] acts as an intensifier; in the old English, we would use the word exceedingly and today we might simply use the word very. The two together in modern English are best rendered highly esteemed or highly respected.

For those who have been reading ahead, or know the story of the Exodus, you realize that Pharaoh will pursue Moses with his army. There were certainly Egyptians who respected Moses and were gracious to the Jews. There were also those who despised and even feared the Jews as Pharaoh did. God had already told Moses that the Jews would ask for various necesities and provisions and they would be provided for them by the Egyptians.

And Moses said, "Thus says Yahweh; about midnight I am going forth in the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die—from the firstborn of Pharaoh who is sitting on his throne even to the firstborn of the female slave who is behind the two millstones, and all the firstborn of the livestock. [Ex. 11:4–5]

This is a serious judgement to an unbeliever; however, God will give them a way out. It will be a simple, nonmeritorious way for them to save their children. All they have to do is to believe Yahweh.

Then shall there be a great outcry in all the land of Egypt such as never was and such as never shall be again. [Ex. 11:6]

For believers and unbelievers alike, regardless of doctrinal truth, the loss of a child is one of the most tragic things which could ever occur on a personal level.

On the one hand, we might present the argument, was God too harsh? However, the flip side of that argument is, why didn’t God just destroy all of the Egyptians and be done with it? It is quite simple: there were some hearts and minds among the Egyptians who could be swayed—a mixed multitude will go out of Egypt with the Jews. This mixed multitude are non-Jews out from the land of Egypt who believed in the God of the Jews. Furthermore, the Egyptians had not reached a point of degeneracy to where God called for them to be destroyed in total (unlike some of the peoples of Canaan). How do we know this? God called upon the Jews to destroys degenerates in the land of Canaan because they would, among other things, offer up their own children to be sacrificed. All I know is, there was this statue of Molech with its arms stretched out. these arms would be heated by fire, and then a baby would be placed upon these arms to die—this is the degeneracy that we know about. There is no telling what the extent was of their degeneracy. On the other hand, here we have the Egyptians, and when their firstborn die, it is the worst tragedy which could befall them; so there is some remaining humanity within them.

Application: God knows just exactly what to do and how much pressure to apply. God does not condemn every degenerate group of people to immediate death. Therefore, when we see tragedy play out in the world, regardless of its depth, we need to realize that God knows exactly what He is doing and that He applies the perfect amount of pressure.

There was another reason that God applied consistent, but restrained pressure on Egypt, apart from the salvation of some of them: God needed to make a statement which would be understood world wide. He needed all of the nations to know of His power and strength, so that, through this knowledge, some might be saved.

But against the sons of Israel shall a dog sharpen his tongue

; neither against man nor beast that you may know that Yahweh has established a difference between Egypt and Israel." [Ex. 11:7]

For some of you who are having this exegeted for you, there is a logistical problem. In the past, Moses has always given Pharaoh fair warning concerning the plagues which God would subject Egypt to. Moses would go to Pharaoh, even if it was to catch him before his morning shower and declare "Thus says Yahweh..." However, Moses just told Pharaoh that they would not see each other face to face again, so just exactly what is going on? In Ex. 10:29, Moses makes a pretty stern statement and then nothing is said really about Moses and Pharaoh speaking to one another again. However, in Ex. 11:8, all of a sudden, Moses stormed out of Pharaoh's palace in a heat of anger. This indicates that chapter 11 just continues this same meeting which was concluded in Ex. 10:29. Ex. 11: 1–3 are parenthetical to set us up for the rest of the chapter. Both plagues and their results were already given to Moses. However, these events are presented separately—but not necessarily chronologically—as that is easier to comprehend.

Vv. 3‒7 present an interesting juxtaposition. In v. 3 we see the Egyptians as sympathetic and possibly even affectionate toward the Jews and in the following verse we have God's judgment against them. In case some of you are worried about that, God will provide an option to those who are postive toward His Word.

"So shall all these, your servants, come down to me and bow themselves down to me, saying, 'Go forth, you and all the people who are at your feet,' and after that I will go forth." And he went forth from Pharaoh in a heat of anger. [Ex. 11:8]

Moses is quite upset that Pharaoh has threatened his life and he is reacting to that threat. It is possible that Moses is out of fellowship at this time; we do not know. However, what he points out is true and would certainly upset Pharaoh; after the next plague, Pharaoh's own men will bow down to Moses and request that he leave with Israel and there will be no conditions upon their departure. This was likely the man that Moses was raised with; a man who possibly was intensely jealous of Moses when they were growing up together. As siblings, they could have had a relationship which was good or not; however, seeing that Moses is a genius in many fields and seeing how negative this Pharaoh is toward God, it is likely that their relationship was strained and competative at best. Afterall, being raised at the same time in the royal family would give them equal opportunity of ascension to the throne. Moses, with all of his natural abilities and drive would have been the odds-on favorite and this would have caused an incredible amount of jealousy in the Pharaoh, the natural son, and biological heir to the throne. He would consider it his birthright and be quite upset with an adopted son, a Jew

, no less, as competition to the throne. What would further upset him, is that he would recognize that Moses was better in all respects and deserved to rule Egypt; that would cause a deep bitterness and resentment. This remark of Moses was not very well received.

And Yahweh had kept saying to Moses, "Pharaoh will not listen [and give heed] to you; [the purpose being] that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt." [Ex. 11:9]

Vv. 9–10 are summary verses to these plagues. Pharaoh has said no for the last time. Saying and listen are imperfect tenses, meaning continuous action.

So then Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; however, Yahweh strengthened the heart of Pharaoh and he did not let the sons of Israel go, out of his land. [Ex. 11:10]

There is a great Old English word which I would use, if it didn't sound so archaic: "hearken." Most older translations use this word in v. 9. It conveys more than to just "listen" (which is the more modern translation). It means to listen, consider and obey. I wish we had an equivalent English word which didn't sound that archaic. There is a false theory of translation that every language can be tanslated word-for-word into any other language because all language is the product of man; and all men are the same, and therefore will develop the same language concepts and the same vocabulary for the universal experience of mankind. This is false, and the more you know about two languages, the more you relaize that man with all his similarities, still can have fundamental differences in language structure and vocabulary (although there is certainly a lot of similarities). My personal view is that God gave man his first language (at the tower of Babel) and man took it from there and modified what God had given him.

This passage represents a pause in this narrative. Moses is summing up to that point in time what has transpired. From Ex. 5:1 to 11:8, we have had a relatively seamless narrative of the interaction of God, Moses and Pharaoh (although we do have the involvement of Aaron and the Jewish elders). These two verses indicate that we are at a temporary stopping point. What has transpired has been summed up in a couple of sentences. It is all nicely sandwiched between Ex. 4:21–22 and 11:9–10.

Introduction: Chapter 12 should have possibly been organized into a couple different chapters and I would have personally put it together differently; however, I am not Moses guided by God the Holy Spirit. The overall picture here is the Passover feast and its regulations. Also included in this chapter are the preparations for and the actual exodus of Israel from Egypt.

The time frame here is different than the time frame given in the previous chapter. At the end of the three days of darkness, when Moses (and presumably Aaron) had been summoned by Pharaoh (Ex. 10:24), Moses delivered to Pharaoh the final Plague, the death of all the first-born (Ex. 11:4–6). That had been promised for that very night at midnight (Ex. 11:4). However, here Moses is given instructions concerning Israel four (and possibly fourteen) days in advance. Therefore, this was told to Moses prior to the plague of the three days of darkness and Moses relays these instructions to the people of Israel prior to these three days. This is how Moses knew that he would never see Pharaoh's face again because he got the instructions concerning Passover (Ex. 12:1–23), the promise to kill the first-born of those who are not protected by the blood (Ex. 11:1–6 12:23) and the warning of the plague of darkness (Ex. 10:21–22) all at the same time. They were just separated because it is easier to mentally organize if we think of these things plague by plague and think of the Passover as a separate ordinance altogether, but tied in meaning to the last plague.

Then Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, "This month [is] to you a beginning of months; it [is] for you the first month of the year." [Ex. 12:1–2]

A synonymia [pronounced syn-o-NYM-i-a] is the repetition of a synonymous phrase. Twice in this verse we are told that this is the beginning of a new year; that the calender system of the Jews was being changed. This is a pretty big event, so it is repeated here for emphasis. This is essentially the beginning of Israel as a nation, so they will begin their new year with this month. This introduces the Jewish calender, which is based upon lunar months. The first month was called Abib (Ex. 13:4) until the Babylon captivity, after which it was called Nisan (Neh. 2:1 Esther 3:7). As most of us know, this corresponds to the later portion of March and early April on our calendars.

Because of Ex. 11:4–5 and 12:23, I believe that these instructions—or the bulk of these instructions—were given at the ninth day of the month. The beginning of this month, when God said this verse to Moses was likely when He spoke to Moses about the plague of the locusts (Ex. 10:1–2). In retrospect, Moses organizes the plagues as ten separate events, each preceded by instructions concerning the plague from God. He sees the Passover and the instructions for Passover as one event. However, the information given by God to Moses was not separated in exactly this way into 11 conversations. It was actually nine conversations wherein Moses received the information concerning the plagues and the Passover (more if God spoke to Moses twice on the same day). However, it is easier for us to understand the events topically and Moses remembers the events topically as opposed to entirely in a chronological manner.

"Speak to the assembly of Israel

, saying 'On the tenth of this month, they will take to themselves each man a lamb to his ancestral household [lit., father's house of fathers]; a lamb for each house.'" [Ex. 12:3]

Every sacrifice in the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God who bore our sins in His body on the tree (John 1:29 I Peter 1:19 2:24). Even though there is only one Lamb of God who removes sin from us, this salvation must be obtained individually. Therefore, each household had a lamb so that everyone could observe this ritual. This was the way the gospel was presented to the Israelites. Jesus Christ had not come yet in the flesh, so God made certain that every child saw animal sacrifice after animal sacrifice performed to cover their sins. At some point in time, they were to trust in God that He would remove their sins and the penalty of their sins from them and that this removal had nothing to do with individual merit.

"'And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he shall take [a lamb], [even] he and his neighbor, to his nearest [lit., next] house according to the number of souls, each one according to his appetite [lit., mouth] shall you number with reference to the lamb.'" [Ex. 12:4]

The translations vary on this verse because it is a difficult one to translate. He shall take is a conjunction and the Qal imperfect 3^rd masculine singular of lâqach (ח ַק ָל) [pronounced law-KAHK] and it means to take, to bring, to carry; it is a very widely applied and often used verb. Most translations render this as those it has a plural subject, but it does not. Furthermore, ellipsis is involved. It does not have a direct object for take nor does it even have a suffix (which would mean he would take it). However, we can easily ascertain from context that this is a lamb which is being taken.

Although the word-for-word translation of this verse is difficult, its meaning is fairly simple, so I will not dwell on a word by word rendering; some households might have 3 or 4 people and a lamb might be excessive for that household. They are to go next door and participate with that family. There is to be a national bonding of all Israelites and an interdependence. God is expecting that each household completely devour their lamb.

Our Lord died for all mankind

and it is the desire of God the Father that all come to a knowledge of repentance (I Tim. 2:4 II Peter 3:9). Jesus Christ paid the penalty for the sins of the world (I John 2:2) and God wants every man to obtain that which was provided for him. Therefore, God does not want there to be any lamb left over. He desires for the entire lamb to be consumed; which means that every man has consumed the portion designed by God for him. When there is leftover lamb, that means there was another person for whom Christ died who did not personally appropriate salvation for himself.

A minor point: as is often found in Hebrew, a part of the body means much more than the part of the body. Here we find the word mouth but it is used for the amount of food one is able to place into the mouth at the dinner table. This is usually translated eating; but a good modern translation for this context would be appetite.

"'A lamb without defect, a male, a year old is yours from the sheep or from the goats, will you obtain.'" [Ex. 12:5]

The lamb without defect is certainly a picture of Jesus Christ, perfect in His humanity (Heb. 9:14 II Cor. 5:21 I Peter 1:19). Believers are not judged for our sins; Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, was judged in our stead (John 1:29 I Cor. 5:7b). Jesus Christ did not begin His formal ministry until He was a young adult of about 30. We know very little of His life as a child except that He grew by means of God's Word as a youth (and, therefore, as a young man) (Luke 2:46–49, 52). Therefore, a lamb was chosen in young adulthood. The younger the lamb, the easier it would be to find one which did not have any scarring, injury or blemish of any kind.

"'So it [the male lamb] shall be for your to observe [or, to guard or keep] until the fourteenth day of this month; then shall all the convocation of the assembly of Israel slay it between the two evenings'" [Ex. 12:6]

The first phrase of this verse is not easy to give a good word-for-word English rendering to. It begins with a conjunction and the Qal perfect 3^rd masculine singular of the ultimate status quo verb hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] and it means to be, to become, to come to pass. This is followed by the lâmed preposition, which means to, for, in regard to, near, into, with reference to. So far, this gives us: and it [the male lamb] shall be for you (or to you). The again we have the lâmed preposition followed by one of the longer Hebrew words: mish^emereth (ח ∵ר ∵מ ׃ש ̣מ) [pronounced mish-MAH-reth] and it means watch, custody, sentry, observance, guard, charge. We end up translating this preposition and noun like an infinitive to watch, to guard, to observe.

Notice that the lamb was not obtained and killed immediately. The lamb remaining in the house for three days prior to its slaughter was analogous to Jesus Christ coming to earth and living among us, His public ministry lasting approximately three years. The lamb was observed and tested (the Israelites kept it in the house for three days and were to be certain that it had no defects; the three days gave them more than enough time within which to carefully check the animal out). Jesus Christ was similarly studied during his three years of ministry for defect (Luke 11:53–54 John 8:46 18:38)

The chilling portion of this verse is: then shall the entire assembly of the congregation of Israel kill it. The God of Israel, who loved and chose Israel from the foundation of the world, came to Israel in the flesh, as a man, and Israel killed Him. Do not mistake this for anti-Semitism. God chose Israel in eternity past, knowing full well that they would deny the Lord Who bought them, and slay Him when the opportunity arose. However, this lamb must be slain (Matt. 16:21–23 Heb. 9:22) When the lamb is slain, that is Jesus Christ dying on the cross on our behalf, paying the penalty for our sins (Heb. 10:10–14 I John 1:7).

Since the destroyer was going to come through and kill the first-born at midnight (Ex. 12:29) and because the Israelites were not to go outside until morning (Ex. 12:22), this means that between the two evenings is probably immediately at sunset. Compare Ex. 16:12, where they have a meal of quail between the two evenings; yet in the morning they go out and ather manna; this would be dinner and breakfast. See also Num. 28:4 where morning and between the two evenings are in contrast with one another.

"'And they shall take of the blood and put it on the two door posts and upon the upper beam, on the houses wherein they are to eat it.'" [Ex. 12:7]

The blood dripping from above on the upper beam and the blood on the two door posts looks like a cross with our Lord's hands and feet nailed and bleeding, and the blood from his head due to the beatings and the crown of thorns. The word to place is in the Qal perfect; placing the blood on the door post is a completed action which insures salvation forever (the act of placing the blood there does not; the faith in Yahweh is what insures their salvation). Eating is often a metaphore for obtaining salvation and it can be expanded into a metaphor for spiritual growth. Eating is a nonmeritorious action which everyone is capable of—immoral, amoral, moral, sinful, self-righteous, and men of all descriptors eat—and eating is analogous to believing in Jesus Christ. It is something which can be done without attributing any merit to the eater. However, once this activity is begun (right at birth) it must be continued in order to experience growth; we, as new born Christians must continue to feed upon the word—an activity which is also lacking in personal merit—and through eating His Word we grow. God has given protection to those who have taken refuge in His blood, who partake of spiritual food, whether it be by believing in Him initially or belieiving in His word as time goes by.

"'And shall they eat the flesh in the same night; roasted with fire and with unleavened cakes, upon bitter herbs they will eat it.'" [Ex. 12:8]

The roasting with fire is judgement by God of Jesus Christ; the unleavened bread speaks of no intermingling of yeast, or false doctrine to the gospel. When it comes to false doctrine, the yeast is primarily works—trusting in ourselves to provide salvation. The bitter herbs speaks of the repugnance of our sins to Jesus Christ and how difficult it was for God the Father to judge His Son for our sins. The preposition which accompanies bitter herbs is ׳al (ל ַע) [pronounced al] and it means upon, over, against. This is rarely translated correctly because most people when they add bitter herbs, the herbs are put on top rather than the other way around. This is symbolic. What we see as newly saved people is apprehending salvation through the judgement of Jesus Christ in the flesh; however, we do not see the bitter herbs that go with it at first. It is later when we learn some of God's Word when we realize how horrible this was for God the Father and God the Son.

"'Please, do not eat of it underdone nor cooked by boiling in water, but roasted with fire, its head upon its legs and upon its inward parts [or, midst].'" [Ex. 12:9]

There are no two ways of salvation. Christians and Old Testament Jews are saved by believing in Jesus Christ but Buddhists are not saved by following Buddha. Christian Scientists are not saved by following the teachings of Mary Baker Patterson Glover Eddy. We are saved just one way; there is no watered-down (boiled) gospel which saves us. God the Son must be judged; therefore, the lamb must be roasted by fire. There are not two ways of doing this. There is none other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Even the positioning of the lamb's head upon its feet and midst represents the cowered head of our Lord struck with the judgement for our sins.

"'And you will let nothing of it remain until morning, but that which is left remaining until morning in the fire shall you consume.'" [Ex. 12:10]

We place our trust in the entire person of Jesus Christ, just as they ate the entire animal. God the Son paid the full penalty for the sins of the world; He did not just die for a few sins, nor did He die for most of our sins, so that if we keep sinning, we will lose our salvation. His death for our sins was absolute. He does not have to return to the cross to die again for our faults; there is no other savior who will come along later. Note that every little thing that they did was analogous to the salvation that we have presented from the retrospective cross. Their gospel looked forward to the cross. What if they did not fully comprehend it? God the Holy Spirit made enough of the gospel understandable to them that if they exercised positive volition by believing in Jesus Christ, Yahweh, the God of Israel, they were eternally saved even as we.

"'And in this manner you will eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand; so shall you eat it in haste; it is Yahweh's passing over.'" [Ex. 12:11]

Eating quickly means we are to apprehend Christ as quickly as possible and to make maximum use of divine operating assets. It is important that we take this salvation when it is offered to us. It was not normal to eat wearing shoes. Most people in the ancient eastern world took their shoes (or, sandals) off their feet as they entered into a home (see Ex. 3:5). The loins girded, the sandals on your feet and staff in your hand speaks of us being involved in our daily routine in the outside world; it is our daily life and God has presented to gospel to us. No matter what, we reach out and we apprehend His so great salvation.

Prior to this point in time, there were animal sacrificers (see the doctrine of animal sacrifices—not finished yet), but they were not as common or as systematic as they will become from this point on. Animal sacrifices date back to when Adam and Eve first sinned. The animal skins that they wore were a covering which came from a slain animal. These sacrifices spoke of Jesus Christ coming and dying on the cross and in this way conveyed the gospel to people who lived historically prior to the cross. God passed over these people who believed in Jesus Christ through the animal sacrifices. However, the blood of bulls and goats did not remove sin; it was a temporary measure, a sign and a promise of things to come.

"'I will pass along, therefore, throughout the land of Egypt, this night and will kill every first-born in the land of Egypt, from man even to beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgements; I [am] Yahweh.'" [Ex. 12:12]

Each judgment that we have seen was against one or more of the heathen gods of Egypt. We must realize that these gods are made in the image of man or they represents demon (or both). Some religious Egyptians sincerely believed in their gods and believed their gods to be every bits as valid as the God of Israel. People today look at other gods and prophets and believe them to be every bit as valid as the God of the Universe. These gods are made in man's own image and when we worship them, we are worshiping ourselves. The other option is that they represent the demons behind them and when we worship them, we worship these demons. All religions provide a bloodless gospel of works and personal human merit. The average person on the street, the average movie or television show, when it comes to having anything to do with the concept of salvation, human merit is at the forefront. God is weighing our good deeds against our bad deeds and this, to most people, determines our salavation. Even some Christian religions, although they mention the cross and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, still reason that if we do not behave in at least a mediocre manner and try to be good, then what our Lord did on the cross was not good enough and that we will burn in hell with the unbelievers. We are saved totally appart from any personal merit whatsoever. No matter how awful we are by any standard, if we have believed in Jesus Christ, we are eternally saved. We have expressed that three seconds of positive volition toward Who and What God really is and have believed in His Son, then by the merit of our Lord and not by any personal merit, we have been saved forever.

Each plague was an execution of judgement against the gods of Egypt. We have noted some of them. In this context, it should be noted that the firstborn in Egypt were dedicated to their gods. God, by taking their firstborn from them, the child dedicated toe the Egyptian gods, has made war against those gods in this plague. It must be understood that there are no gods which compare to Yahweh, yet these are not imaginary beings. God would not declare war against something that did not exist. The gods of Egypt are demons; as are anyone's false god or gods. Satan's original sin of arrogant pride included "I will be like the Most-High." This is just another facet of the spiritual war in which we find ourselves.

"'Then the blood will serve you for a sign on the houses wherein you are; and I see the blood and I will pass over you; and among you there shall be no plague to destroy [lit., for destruction], when I strike the land of Egypt.'" [Ex. 12:13]

The blood of the sacrificial lamb is sufficient to protect the occupants of the home from the wrath of God, just as the blood of our slain lamb, our Lord Jesus Christ, is sufficient to protect us from the wrath of God. By this we will have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10:10). The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7b).

The word plague is used today to refer to all of the catastrophes which God brought upon the people of Egypt; however, it seems to refer primarily to this last incident. In Ex. 9:14, we have the first use of this term when applied to what God did to Egypt: God tells Moses that He is about to send all of His plagues into the heart of Pharaoh. It is only used two other times in this context (11:1 and 12:13) and both times for this final sign However, the verb is found earlier with the inundation of the frogs, so this is not a hard and fast rule.

Prior to this point in time, there were animal sacrifices (see the doctrine of animal sacrifices), but they were not as common or as systematic as they will become from this point on. The purpose of the animal sacrifices was to reveal Jesus Christ prior to His death and resurrection. The Law, which systematized many things including animal sacrifices, was a freedom code for a new nation, a document which condemned us for our sins a revealer of Jesus Christ who would come and pay for our sins. It was twisted by the Jew into a legalistic maze to be followed to the letter for salvation disregarding its real purpose.

"'So this day shall serve you as a memorial and you will celebrate it as a festival to Yahweh to your generations as an eternal statute will you celebrate it.'" [Ex. 12:14]

I want you to listen to a couple of other translations: Owen: This day shall be for you a memorial day an dyou shall keep (a feast) it. A feast to Yahweh throughout your generations, an ordinance forever—you shall observe it

. The KJV: And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it as a feast by an ordinance forever. The Amplified Bible is very similar. Now the NASB: Now this day will be a memorial to you, and yo shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance. Notice the difference. As an unbeliever, my clearest understanding of the Old Testament were all of these fasts which they had all of the time which were of some spiritual significance. Later I found out that the Old Testament is more famous for feasting and celebration, as per the Word of Yahweh, than it is for fasting. Notice the key differences between the various translations are the words keep or observe as versus celebrate. The word is châgag (ג ַג ָח) [pronounced khaw-GAG] and it means to celebrate a feast, to attend a festival-gathering. Strong's points out that by implication is means giddy; I Sam 30:16 has it used in a very similar way. Even though this is a solemn time and the reasons for the celebration are extremely important and serious, this day is a celebration. When you have become born-again into God's kingdom, with the rights and privileges thereto, it is a grand celebration. It is found first in the Qal perfect, indicating that this is established forever, and then in the Qal imperfect indicating the continued celebration year after year.

The Passover also caused the Jews in later generations to look backward into time to Egypt and their slavery in Egypt and their miraculous deliverance by Yahweh, the true God. All of this is illustrative of salvation. By looking backward into time, they look forward to the cross, to Jesus Christ, the lamb of God being slain for our salvation, His blood (ie, His spiritual death) being offered for our sins, redeeming us from the slave market of sin.

"'[For] seven days, you will eat unleavened cakes. You will certainly remove leaven from your homes on the first day; for whoever eats that which is leavened that soul shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day to the seventh day.'" [Ex. 12:15]

The original Passover spoke of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given on our behalf and the blood, which speaks of the judgment that He took upon Himself—the judgement which we deserve. This feast, which looked forward to the first advent of our Lord was replaced by the Eucharist which looks backward toward the cross. And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and, after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." And He took a cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood fo the covenant, which is shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:26–28; see also I Cor. 11:23–26). Only the most hard-hearted fails to see how carefully God tied these two rituals together, one a reflection of the other, both speaking of the cross. Otherwise, all that we have here in this passage is some heathen ritual involving the sloshing of blood around the door and eating flat bread. God, however, knew the end from the beginning and the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8b); that is, in His divine decrees, in eternity past (from the foundation of the world) God planned the death of Jesus Christ on our behalf.

"'Both

on the first day [you shall have] a holy convocation and on the seventh day a holy convocation shall there be to you. You will not do any work during that time, except only that which must be eaten by every soul; that alone shall be prepared by you." [Ex. 12:16]

The Hebrew word for convocation is miq^erâ (א ָר ׃ק ̣ם ) [pronounced mik-RAW] and it means assembly, a callling together for worship or for sacred rites. So that this is not misinterpreted, God recognizes that the children of Israel must eat and it would be allowable to prepare meals during this time. The bizarre statutes and rules which later characterized the Sabbath were not a part of the Law but added by legalistic religious fanatics who were trying to be saved by works

. It is not clear what they have in terms of divine revelation or just how much the Jews have in oral tradition. A week is a long time without some structure. Therefore, God will give some structure to this time period.

"'So then you will observe the [feasts of the] unleavened cakes because on this same day I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt; so then you will observe this day to your generations as an eternal statute." [Ex. 12:17]

God will, in the law, set up the feast days, but he is also doing it in time; which is a part of the principle of unfolding or progressive revelation. It took awhile before we got to the point to where all necessary revelation had been given to us. In fact, we are the first dispensation where that was true. We are one of the few nations where the Scripture is not only available but it is available in great abundance. Even though decent Bible teaching is difficult to find, God has promised us if we desire to know the doctrine, God will reveal it to us. At this point in time in this Exodus generation, we are taking it a step at a time.

The unleavened cakes speaks of pure, unadulterated, uncorrupted doctrine and relationship with God. The word "hosts" is the Hebrew word tsâbâ (א ָב ָצ ) [pronounced tsaw-BAW] and means a mass of persons, usually organized for war. Wilson adds that everyone is appointed to their proper duty stations and is expected to perform their proper function. At this point in time, Israel had no army; they were slaves. God was going to change all that. God expected them to trust Him and ths would involve marshaling an army and taking the land which He gave to them. We may question this, but God knows much better than we do what He is doing. Men who are willing to sacrifice their lives and to fight for their country are much more selfless and less arrogant and pompous than those who would refuse to stand up for their country or those who must be emotionally stimulated before they are willing to fight. Furthermore, the land was filled with a cancer which needed to be cut out. God will achieve His ends through the armies of Israel.

"'In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening you will eat unleavened cakes until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening.'" [Ex. 12:18]

This is a repetition of what God has said. He is making it very clear that during this third week of this first month—the Passover week—there would be no spiritual corruption. God is summarizing portions of this week. However, we learn from this verse that it will be the Jewish custom to determine days from evening to evening. We technically observe a new day at midnight. Unofficially, a new day for most of us begins somewhere between 4 am and 7 am.

"'For seven days, leaven shall not be found in your houses for whoever eats what is leavened then shall that soul be cut off out of the assembly of Israel whether an immigrant or a native of the land.'" [Ex. 12:19]

Notice here that God is calling the Israelites natives of the land. They have not even left Egypt yet, but God is outside of time and recognizes that they will possess the land and they will for the rest of history be tied to this land (although they may not possess it as God has intended until the end of human history). The Jews are spoken of as being in the land with immigrants. The way that the Jews would be a witness to other countries would cause those in other countries to come to Israel for spiritual food. Sometimes God would cause people to wander through Israel that He could evangelize them through Israel. Part of the evangelization process which was done on those who are the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and on those who had recently immigrated to the country, or were passing through.

"'Nothing leavened will you eat; in all your dwellings you will eat unleavened cakes.'" [Ex. 12:20]

We have examined the concept of leaven as being corruption and infiltration of false doctrine. What is abundantly clear is that God will not tolerate corruption of His Word. Here, the same thing is being said in the negative and in the positive sense to emphasize the importance of this portion of God's ritual.

So then Moses called for all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Drag and take for yourselves a lamb, according to your families and kill the Passover [lamb or goat]." [Ex. 12:21]

God has told the Jews to mâshak^e (׃ך ַש ָמ) [pronounced maw-SHAK] which means sow, prolong, develop, march, draw, drag; obviously it is a verb with many applications. Too often, the translations downplay this language. It sounds too much like the Jews are going out a selecting a Christmas tree. They are going to go into the flock and grab a lamb; they were to drag a lamb out of the flock and kill it, just as Jesus was dragged from His place of prayer to trial and to His crucifixion. It sounded incongruous to the Jews at that time (and to some more recent translators) to choose a lamb without spot and blemish, but then to drag it out of the flock; but this is a perfect picture of our Lord at the crucifixion.

Furthermore: what is it that they are killing? Obviously they are killing the Passover lamb, but it does not say that. On the one hand, it is a metonymy where Passover stands for the Passover lamb—that is fairly obvious. However, the One Who is passing over is God the Son; He is taking the lives of the first-born; and right here the Israelites are told to kill the Passover—they are told to kill Jesus Christ, their Passover lamb, the One passing over them that night. You might say that this is a double-metonymy; literally and in the past, they are killing the Passover lamb. However, typically and in the future, they will kill the true Passover lamb, Jesus Christ, Whom God the Father will see slain in our stead and Passover us. Even though this is the vocabulary and the literary style of Moses, God the Holy Spirit, Who knows the end from the beginning, speaks through Moses in such a way that we can see that the entire Bible is the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16), perceived of as a whole in eternity past, yet written down in various times for our growth, our edification today.

Now Moses passes these instructions onto the elders of Israel. There has always been a heirarchy of authority, even in the spiritual realm. God speaks to Moses and Moses to the elders and the elders to the heads of the families and they to their families. Part of it is logistical—there is no way that Moses can effectively address all of the people, lacking a newspaper and a public address system. Part of it is that in God's plan; God speaks to most of us through His Word and not directly.

"Then you will take a bunch of hyssop and dip it into the blood which is in the basin and strike [lit., cause to touch] the upper beam and the two door posts with the blood which is in the basin; and you will not go forth any man out of the entrance of his house until morning." [Ex. 12:22]

The Jews must remain in the house protected by God. This speaks of our fellowship with Him. We always have a wall of fire, a wall of protection; however, when we fall out of fellowship, we do not lose this wall, but we are subject to discipline, which can be quite harsh.

Although Hyssop is found several times throughout the Old and New Testaments, we do not know what plant the Old Testament referred to by hyssop. However, the type of plant is not as important as its significance. It is used here at the first Passover and in several other places (the purification rites for lepers and the red heifer sacrifice). See the doctrine of hyssop—finished.

"And Yahweh will pass through to kill the Egyptians and when He sees the blood on the upper beam and on the two door posts, then Yahweh will pass over the entrance and not allow the destroyer to enter into your houses to strike [you]." [Ex. 12:23]

Although Bullinger lists this as an anthropopathism, it is and it isn't. God is omnipresent; He cannot confine Himself to a point in space. Therefore, it is impossible for Him to pass through any area, per se. However, the Lord Jesus Christ took on angelic form, human form, the form of a burning bush, etc. He is the revealed member of the Godhead and when one is said to see God, that one sees a manifestation of God; not God Himself for God is a Spirit. He no more sees God than we see our family or friends; we see the bodies that they inhabit, but we do not see their souls, their immaterial part, which makes up the greater portion of what is them. We generally like an ddislike people for what they are inside and not for the outter covering. I personally have seen many beautiful women that once you began to unwrap them (that is, you get to know them well enough to peer into their souls) they suddenly lose a great deal of their attractiveness. You can have two people who are in physically the same package—that is, who appear to be twins—but inside they are so totally different that you could love one and hate the other. So, even though God is a Spirit, as God the Son, He manifests Himself in many ways. We do not know whether there was any kind of a physical manifestation here or not (none seems to be indicated), however there was a certain personal touch in the visiting of each Egyptian household as the first-born is taken from them in death.

When we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, God does not see us; His righteousness does not examine our unrighteousness. Instead of seeing us, His righteousness sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ. We are covered by Christ's blood. This is all symbolic of that. God passed over these people wherever He saw the blood, since that looked forward to the blood of Christ; i.e., His death on our behalf on the cross. I have come to despise some of the Christain sayings because they are made to sound trite and trivialized, but this is what covered by the blood means.

"And you will observe this rite [or, what I have charged you with] as a statute to yourselves and to your sons until eternity." [Ex. 12:24]

What I have translated as rite is the word dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR] which essentially means speech, word, discourse, saying, charge, utterance, matter, affair, cause, way, manner. It is a reference to what is spoken; a one word consistent translation is difficult and it is found translated in almost as many different ways as it is found in the Old Testament. Like the Eucharist, the Jews were to observe this forever. This would always call them bak to the time that they were spared because God saw the blood of the sacrificial lamb on their doorways and did not strike them. For the many Jews who believe in Jesus Christ, this is one of the many passages which will suddenly have meaning that it did not before.

"And so it will come to pass when you enter into the land which Yahweh will give you, as He has spoken; and you shall observe this service." [Ex. 12:25]

Service is the word ׳ăbôdâh (ה ָדֹבְַע) [pronounced ab-o-DAW] and it can mean labor, service and work which is related to servitude or to the temple.

"And it shall come to pass that your sons shall say to you, 'What does this service mean to you [lit., what is this service to you]?'" [Ex. 12:26]

The service being spoken of is, of course, the Passover rite. It was designed to be a teaching aide. This verse makes that clear. While participating in this rite, years hence, certainly the younger persons who were not on the Exodus will wonder why their fathers have a custom or a ritual such as this. That is to allow an opening to explain their relationship to the living God. Ritual without reality is meaningless. This is to help the young person get the gospel revealed to him and the older person to speak of Yahweh God to his sons and daughters.

"Then you will say, 'It is a Passover sacrifice to Yahweh because He passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt, when He killed the Egyptians; but over our houses He spared [lit., delivered].'" Then the people bent their heads and bowed themselves down [Ex. 12:27]

One of the most important words in the New Testament is the word saved and its many variations and cognates. The corresponding Hebrew word is found in this verse: nâtsal (ל ַצ ָנ) [pronounced naw-TSAL] and it means deliver, snatch away, save, escape from, rescue, recover. Found several hundred times in the Old Testament, it is used primarily for temporal deliverance as a shadow of eternal deliverance.

And the sons of Israel went their way and did; as Yahweh commanded Moses and Aaron so they did. [Ex. 12:28]

A month prior to this, Moses and Aaron could have come to the people with these instructions and they would not have listened. The Plagues opened them up to God's direction and Moses' leadership. Every now and again, the passage mentions Aaron so that we know he is still there.

And it came to pass at midnight that Yahweh struck down every first-born in the land of Egypt from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat upon his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the pit of his prison; even every first-born of beasts. [Ex. 12:29]

This plague of plagues affected every man and beast in Egypt, from the least to the greatest. This was to be the devastating plague, the one which caused despair beyond belief throughout the land of Egypt.

There is a reasonable possibility

that we have historical evidence that the son of the Pharaoh of Egypt was slain in this judgement. On the timetable for Israel, the Exodus occurred 480 years prior to the laying of the cornerstone for Solomon's temple (I Kings 6:1), which occurred four years after Solomon began his reign. If Solomon began his reign in 970 bc then this cornerstone would have been laid in 966 bc. This places the date of the Exodus in 1446–1445 bc. With regards to the Egyptian time frame: Thutmose III of the Eighteenth dynasty was likely the Pharaoh of oppression from whom Moses fled in Ex. 2:11–15. He died in 1447 bc. His son, Amenhotep II became the Pharaoh of the Exodus. He was succeeded by his son, Thutmose IV, who ruled from 1421–1410 bc. We have either a stone or a pillar which was discovered in the shrine that is connected to the grat Sphinx at Gizeh, where Thutmose IV recorded a dream that he had. In this dream, he meets the god Harmakhis-Khepri-Re-Atum, who promises him his kingdom on earth (that is, the rulership of Egypt). There are conditons placed upon this, such as he needed to grab a shovel and remove the sand which stood in the way of the chapel door between the huge paws of the Sphinx. However, this would seem foolish for a crown prince, the person next in line for the throne to dream and then record. He is going to be the next in line for the throne anyway, so this would be superfluous unless he was not the crown prince, but the next in line after the crown prince. Then a dream like this would be meaningful enough to remember and later to record. This would imply that his older brother met with an untimely death, allowing him to assume the throne over Egypt.

Then the Pharaoh rose up by night, and and all of his servants and all of the Egyptians; and there arose a great outcry throughout Egypt, because there was not a house where there was not one dead. [Ex. 12:30]

Even though the Egyptians, for the most part, did not believe yet, they still could not sleep. Whether there was any noise to accompany these deaths or not, we are not told. However, there are two reasons that many of these Egyptians would awaken in the middle of the night to find their first-born dead. (1) Even though these are unbelievers who refused to acquire God's mercy, they still have seen plague after plague of God's power. Many of them perhaps believed the scientist of their day who ascribed all of the plagues to natural phenomena and who asserted that Moses was a lucky prophet who called all the shots right. (2) Secondly, there is often an unexplained almost ethereal bond between parents and their children and certainly when the first-born in many households died, the parents suddenly found themselves awakened. Whatever sound may have occurred in the deaths of the first-born, this was nothing compared to the sad cry of each Egyptian who had lost a son or daughter.

To many, this will seem even beyond cruel. Recall, however, that these Egyptians have seen the hand of God in their lives for the past month doing things that have never been seen before throughout the history of Egypt; some since the foundation of the world. They viewed all of this firsthand. All any Egyptian had to do was go and inquire of the Jews how to avoid this plague. Certainly, with what had been occurring, every time Moses spoke to Pharaoh, word of this spread throughout this area as quickly as a modern-day newscast. All they needed to do is to believe Yahweh enough to slaughter a lamb without spot or blemish and to put the blood on the door posts of their home. Certainly, you would think that the life of their son or daughter would be worth that much. At the very worst, they faced the ostracism of their neighbors, friends and relatives. This is no different than salvation; an unbeliever need only believe in Jesus Christ. He does not need to do anything else and he will be spared eternity in the lake of fire. Very little is required of us by God in order to apprehend salvation other than a small amount of positive volition toward God. What the unbeliever faces is far worse than the death of their first-born and what is required of them is far less. If you are personally concerned about an unbeliever, then tell them about God's grace and how little is required to save them from a burning hell.

So he [Pharaoh] called for Moses and for Aaron by night and said, "Rise up and get out of the midst of my people, both you and the sons of Israel, and go serve Yahweh according to your word." [Ex. 12:31]

Pharaoh has finally given in to the pressures. He is allowing them to go into the desert to celebrate their relationship to Yahweh, but he will later put forth a series of actions which will make it impossible for the Jews to return to Egypt. Being Pharaoh, all three verbs are in the Qal imperative—as though he has some control over this matter.

"[Also], take your flocks and your herds, as you have required [lit., spoke] and go. [In doing all of this] so you shall bless even me." [Ex. 12:32]

This verse has two Qal imperatives. Bless is in the Piel perfect; an intensive stem which views the action as a completed result. Although this is not the end of Pharaoh hardening his heart, at this point in time he has unconditionally surrendered. There are no clauses or incentives to return to Egypt once the Jews leave. In fact, Pharaoh has told them in these two verses, three times to go (two different words, all in the Qal imperative). He is not requiring them to leave their firstborn, their animals or anything else. Pharaoh does not believe in Yahweh at this time, but he is at his wit's end. He has been beaten and Yahweh has allowed him to yield. In the exodus of the Jews, Pharaoh says that this would bless even him. What would have been more of a blessing to him would have been to believe in Yahweh and to go with them. However, he has chosen to remain an unbeliever.

And the Egyptians became urgent with the people to send them in haste out of the land, for they said, "We all are dying." [Ex. 12: 33]

The free labor of the Jews was no longer important enough to retain them. The Egyptians who sent them out were not believers. They were not all dying. God specifically struck down the first-born as He said He would do. The Jews in the land was not in of itself a curse to them. However, like most people, they perceived what they wanted to perceive. What God had intended to do was clear and specific. Their solution was also clear and specific. What God was not doing was killing them all. However, they had no idea what other plagues might come next.

So the people took up their dough, before it was leavened, along with their kneading bowls, bound up in their clothing, [and placed all of this] on their shoulders. [Ex. 12:34]

Here we cover the preparations for departure. The idea behind the unleavened bread, which we hear about over and over again is, the Jews were in such a hurry to leave that they did not have time let their bread rise. However, taking the bread before it was leavened was as much symbolic as it was real. This was leaving in a pure state without corruption. It did, in all actuality, occur; however, God the Holy Spirit points this out to indicate that the Jews who left Egypt were saved.

And the sons of Israel did according to the word of Moses and asked of the Egyptians articles of silver and articles of gold and clothing. [Ex. 12:35]

This verse fulfills Gen. 15:14, wherein God promises to Moses: "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve; and afterward, they will come out with many possessions." There are a combination of two things occurring here. When friends part or when a servant leaves, a gift is in order; however, in some cases, the Egyptian owners were willing to give anything to cause the Jews to leave. We certainly had both groups, although after the death of their first-born, those who did not follow the Passover proceedure were certainly more embittered toward the Jews, even though the loss of their first-born was their own fault.

As had been mentioned, not all Egyptians despised the Jews. As in any group of peoples, there were pro-Semitics and anti-Semitics. God nowhere ordered the execution of the Egyptians. They had not, as a people, reached a point of no-return degeneracy. Some followed the instructions of Yahweh and many did not. After having slaves of these people for a long time, there were certainly those who looked down upon them and others who looked upon the Jews with true affection and respect (we had the same thing when the United States had the institution of slavery; it is just that the latter aspect receives very little attention).

And Yahweh gave the people grace in the eyes of the Egyptians and they gave them gladly; so they retrieved (despoiled) [from] the Egyptians. [Ex. 12:36]

The final verb, nâtsal ( ל ַצ ָנ ) [pronounced naw-TSAL], requires some explanantion. In the Niphal, it means to deliver oneself or to be delivered; in the Hiphil, it means to snatch away or to deliver. However, here, it is in the Piel imperfect and it means to strip off or to spoil. The imperfect views only a portion of an event, without reference to its completed action, and the Piel is an accomplished act, often expressing intensitiy. Our concept of spoiling is taking wealth by force. This is not what occurred. For 400 years, the Jews have served the Egyptians as slaves and this is what is due them. They are not being compensated for 400 years of slave labor, but they were requesting back pay and remuneration for themselves, the ones who actually were slaves during that generation from those who, in that generation, benefitted economically from the slavery. They Jews were not blackmailing the Egyptians; they had worked for hundreds of years for the Egyptians and they were requesting a small amount of remuneration as opposed to years of back pay;.

Their enslavement earned this. Furthermore, this is a fulfillment of Gen. 15:14 (and, of course, of Ex. 3:22). Even though the final, divine recording of Genesis possibly occurred after the Exodus, this was written in the original records hundreds of years prior to this point in time and it had certainly been preserved in historical documents which the Jews had kept. As a further digression, given Moses' previous life in the palace as an Egyptian, and then leaving Egypt quickly and marrying a Midianite, it was unlikely that Moses had access to these documents from which to write Genesis until his wanderings with this generation through the desert. Some family or families apparently preserved the documents from which Moses wrote Genesis. For a further examination of this, see the authorship of Moses in the introduction to Genesis.

Then did the sons of Israel journeyed up from Rameses towards Succoth; about six hundred thousand grown men on foot, besides little ones. [Ex. 12:37]

The number of Jews to exodus Egypt were dtermined in a variety of ways. This listed just the adult males themselves; there would have been an equal number of females and a large number of children; and there would have been some Egyptians who believed in Yahweh. Altogether, this would be approximately 2,000,000.

This is misinterpreted by some as meaning 600 families, leaving in small, scattered groups. Manfred Barthel the author of What the Bible Really Says, has a good idea once in a great while. However, he reads the Bible lightly and then, remembering one or two small portions of it, jots down a few ideas that might sound reasonable to the very casual reader. He, like many of those of the liberal Christian persuasion, has tried to tone down the Scriptures, remove anything which might be supernatural, miraculous or exclusive. Once and awhile, he hits upon a good idea not pursued by others, but most of what he has to offer is not in keeping with the actual text and the related texts. This idea is a prime example. His thought of the exodus is a few families left Egypt, a few at a time; in small groups, with very little fanfare, and this explains why we do not hear much about them in Egyptian history. If one believes that the archeological records unearthed as they pertain to Egypt reign in the area of truth, and that the Bible is but a religious book filled with a great deal of mythology and legeond, the his approach is rational. However, in Genesis, we pursued the Bible, its purpose, the reality of it in our study of the Scriptures, and have found it to be nothing short of God's Word to man, unadulterated with myth or fiction. Therefore, the idea that the exodus was a few families leaving in scattered shifts hardly accounts for the repeated incredible growth which the Bible speaks of so frequently and does not jive whatsoever with numbers given at later times for those who did leave Egypt.

Rameses (or, Ra'amses) was once the residence of Rameses II, (c. 1290–1234 bc). However, some scholars put this date for the Exodus at 1447 bc. and some believe that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Out of the eleven Pharaohs named Rameses, not one is mentioned by name in the Bible. This city was very likely known as Rameses as far back as 500 years prior to the Exodus (Gen. 47:11 50:26 Ex. 12:41); it is possible, however, that this is the area where Joseph's family was settled and it was later called Rameses (yet identified by Moses as Rameses so that the reader of that time would know what area that he was speaking of).

Moreover, a mixed multitude came up with them; and flocks and herds—a very large number of livestock. [Ex. 12:38]

There seem to be two differing viewpoints on these dates. The fourth year of Solomen's reign is said to be 480 years after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt. I have two dates in my notes at this point: 960 bc or 870 bc, taking the Exodus back to 1440 bc at the end of the 40 year wanderings to as late as 1350 bc as the beginning of the Exodus; depending upon whether departing from Egypt was the initial leaving of Egypt or the final wandering in the desert prior to entering into the promised land. Those scholars placing Moses flight at 1482 bc see him as fleeing Thuthmosis III (1482 bc), whose death is mentioned in Ex. 2:23, making Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. However, we have the Jews, in Ex. 1:11, building the cities of Pithom and Rameses, the latter capitol a project contiued by Rameses after having been begun by his father, Seti I.and likely named after Rameses II (as Rameses I only reigned for a year). This would place the Exodus after 1300 bc, and since the Jews are spoken of as being in the land around 1220 bc, the Exodus, by this viewpoint, is ikely between 1290-1260 bc (see Chronology of the NASB for more details). At the point of this writing, I personally have no real preference. I have further notes from Thieme on this in Acts 13. The explanation given to the I Kings 6:1 passage is that each set of 40 years is approximate, referring to roughly a generation, and twelve generations from Moses to Solomon are spoken of in this dating. I don't know that I buy that yet.

We will hear about this mixed multitude later. These are likely Egyptians and others (inducing Egyptian slaves who were not Jews) who also believed in Jesus Christ and chose to go with the Jews. Such an accompanyment should be viewed as a positive thing; however, Scofield believes that the mixed multitude caused trouble (Num. 11:4–6). He is not the only one. A significant number of commentators give these people a bad rap. The mixed multitude are often made the scapegoat for Israel's apostasy in the desert. The commentators who hold this view are absolutely wrong. It is like they never read the rest of the Pentateuch. Everytime rebelions are recorded and men are disciplined, those men are Jews. The problem was not with those who had been evangelized and chose to cast their lot with the Jews—the problem was with those who did not believe God's Word and rebeled against God's elected leaders. Their ethnic origins were not an issue. Those in rebellion are the entire generation of Jews who are twenty years or older at the time of the first census (which means we are talking about everyone who is in this exodus generation who is roughly eighteen or nineteen or older—let me repeat that, everyone!) Like the Jews, there were certainly those who were positive toward God's Word and those who were not; the latter causing many of the problems. This mixed multitutde will include a younger generation and the adults. Everyone from that mixed multitude who are eighteen or above will die the sin unto death in the desert. Everyone who is a Jew who is eighteen or above will die the sin unto death. There are only four or six exceptions. So it is not the problem of the mixed multitude. They will never be mentioned as a separate entity again. In fact, if anything, these of the mixed multitude are to be commended. These are Egyptians who have forsaken their homeland, have gone against their culture, and have departed to be with God's people. This mixed multitude is not any more a problem to Israel than the Israelites themselves. What appears to be the case is, these people seemed to completely integrate into the Jewish society. Since they are never spoken of separately again, I believe that they became as Jewish as anyone with the actual genes of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They probably intermarried and had sons and daughters who were therefore Jewish.

The exact route is unknown at this time; however, Rameses was certainly going to be near the Great Sea (the Meditterranean Sea), off the Nile. Goshen is South-east of there and the Jews seemed to go in a Southeasterly direction toward the Gulf of Suez, called the Red (Reed) Sea. There are several areas where they may have crossed the Red Sea (or, actually, a tributary thereof).

They then baked the dough which they had brought out of Egypt into round unleavened cakes, for it had not yet become leavened, for they had been driven out of Egypt and could not delay, and they certainly had not made any provisions [in advance] for themselves. [Ex. 12:39]

God has told Moses what will occur and Moses has certainly told the elders of Israel. This is an indication that their faith in Yahweh still left something to be desired. They were not ready at all for a march across the desert. At the darkness or shortly before, the Jews should have been involved in preparing their foodstuffs and packing their things for a trip out of Egypt. However, their faith was not quite that strong. When the first-born died, the Egyptians could not get rid of the Israelites quick enough. they were given whatevr they asked for and implored to leave immediately. There's nothing wrong with making up a sandwich when God tells you that you are going on a long trip.

It is interesting that we find a reason here for unleavened bread: they did not have time to hang around and let the bread rise. Now, the reason for unleavened bread would later become, the leaven represented the infiltration of false doctrine, but these two reasons are intermingled. The Jews had to separate from Egypt; they could not have simply established their independence there in Goshen—God was taking them into their land, and, in part, to separate them from the leaven of the Egyptian culture and religion. Had they remained for any amount of time, they might have been persuaded to remain in slavery, so they baked bread without leaven so that they could bake it, take it and go.

Now the time during which the sons of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. [Ex. 12:40]

This is not the best translation, but what we have is good enough to relay what it is that we need to know—the amount of time that the Jews were in Egypt. This is emphasized in the next verse. When you see it twice like this, you know that this is the exact time period. Bullinger has something to say about this verse which I do not quite understand. It appears to be his claim that this verse does not say that the sons of Israel dwelt in Egypt for 430 years; however, He, like a few other commentators, reckon this sojourning of 430 years as beginning with Abraham's temporary move to Egypt. However, when one takes the four generations, the 430 years (both of which are discussed below) along with the 400 years of enslavement) there is no way that this jives with Bullinger's interpretation. I respect Bullinger in the extreme, but I just won't dance with his daughter here.

And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years—in fact, it was on this very same day, all the armies of Yahweh had come forth out of the land of Egypt [and into the land of Canaan]

. [Ex. 13:41]

God gives us this time frame in His Word so we whould work with it. This is an exact, literal 430 years. Two things should be examined here: the time period and the population. Exodus begins by telling us that there were seventy Israelites who came to Egypt at that point in time, seventy-five in all, including Joseph and his entire family—which would have had to include one daughter (Gen. 41:50 46:26–27 Ex. 1:5 Acts 7:14). Ex. 12:37 38:26 and Num. 2:32 tell us that this population grew to 603,550 adult males. It was predicted in Gen. 15:13 that "Know for certain that your [Abraham's} descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. In modern measuring systems, when we say something measures 14.8 inches, this means that it is closer to 14.8 inches than it is to 14.7 or 14.9 inches. That is, it falls between 14.75 and 14.85 inches. This is how accuracy, precision and significant digits works. When dealing in the hundreds, this would mean that this is closer to 400 than it is to 300 or 500 years. It is an approximation. That is, this falls between 350 and 450 years. This would indicate that Israel was enslaved between 30 and 80 years after Joseph brought his family into the land. In the same context, we read, "Then, in the fourth generation, they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete" (Gen. 15:16). We already have the time frame here (and from other passages) so this allows us to understand the four generations as it is used here. We might picture these four generations as those four men who bridged the gap between Joseph and Moses. Those four generations are spoken of in Ex. 6:16–26. We begin with the son of Jacob, Levi (v. 16), who is the ancestor of Kohath (v. 16), who is the ancestor of Amram (v. 18), who is the father of Moses (v. 20). As was mentioned back in Ex. 6:20, these four men are the four generations who bridge the gap between Jacob and Moses; whose ages add up to be approximately 400 years. It is their lives that are spoken of in Gen. 15:16, which bridge the gap from rulership to citizenship to slavery to the exodus. Although we are never told this, who knows but that maybe it was these particular men who kept the records which wer later organized or copied into the book that we call Genesis, and passed down to the descendant best qualified to guard and protect these Scriptures. I am continually in awe when I compare Scripture with Scripture to see the complete accuracy with which each verse is recorded, when it is taken in context and compared with passages which modify and explain it. This is a prime example.

Gal. 3:16 reads; Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed, He does not say, And to seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one, And to your seed, that is Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. This tells us that the beginning of this 430 years began with Joseph

. Jacob, the last person to whom the promises were made prior to the Jews' bondage to Egypt. Stephen tells us, in Acts 7:6. "But God spoke to this effect, that his offspring would be aliens in a foreign land, and that they would be enslaved and mistreated for four hundred years." (See also Gen. 15:13). Because of the phrasing, we may take the 430 years as exact and the 400 years as approximate (the slight difference in the population figures indicates that sometimes numbers are rounded as approximate). God made promises to Abraham and his heirs; specifically to Jacob in Gen. 46:2–4 (see also 48:2–4). The Pharaoh, in Joseph's day, gave the land of Goshen to the Jews in Gen. 47:1–6. Therefore, I would place the beginning point of the 430 years at Gen. 47:11 and 27. Joseph would have died approximately 25–50 years after Jacob's death (who died almost immediately after bringing his family to the land of Egypt; Gen. 49:33 50:15–21). During this 25–50 years, the sons of Israel were very prosperous and prolific. Joseph had even been around to see three generations of his son's sons (Gen. 50:33). Shortly after Joseph's death, very possibly less than a decade later, there arose a new Pharaoh who did not know Joseph or the history of the Jews, other than they were quite numerous and they wre not Egyptians. My impression is that this would be a young and arrogant Pharaoh who believes that he has all the answers and this Pharaoh enslaved the people of Israel. This would have been 70–200 years after the settling of the Jews in Egypt (enough time for at least two or three generations of Jews) and would give us the number of years that they were in slavery between 370 and 400 years (which is approximately 400 years). Maybe I should have done this in points!

V. 42 is a title of sorts, or an introductory sentence concerning the Passover. The actual translation is a bit difficult. It begins with the nominative masculine singular construct of night and nominative masculine plural of shimmûr (ר ֻ ̣ש) [pronounced shim-MOOR] which occurs but once in the entire Old Testament: here. The feminine of this noun occurs one time also, in Psalm 77:4 and a similar word occurs in Psalm 141:3. The only reason that we know these words have something to do with a watch is they are closely related to the verb for watch, keep, preserve. The NASB renders this word to be observed and notes it should possibly be of vigil. Rotherham calls it of solemn observation. The death of the first-born in Egypt occurred one time and this is a noun to accompany this one-time event. The masculine singular pronoun refers back to this night of watching and a verb is implied but not stated (as is often the case when we find a loose pronoun); and to this is added the lâmed preposition and Yahweh. The we have the lâmed prefixed preposition again with the Hiphil infinitive construct of bring with the masculine plural suffix. The Hiphil is causative. The second phrase is similar to the first except that it has the masculine demonstrative zeh (ה ∵ז) [pronounced zeh] which means this, here. The masculine singular pronoun is found again, implying the verb to be. The rest of the second phrase is similar to the first inasmuch as we have Yahweh and the lâmed preposition and our rare word shimmûr again.

A night of solemn observation it [is] to Yahweh, for [causing] to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt; this [is] that night of Yahweh, for solemn observation by the sons of Israel to their generations. [Ex. 12:42]

The feel here is that Moses put down the pen in v. 41 and picked it up again here; or, before he distanced himself too far from the Passover, included more of what God had spoken to him concerning this ritual which was to be perpetuated. This was just the most logical place to include this information. Had he a word processor, Moses may have done tings differently; however, this fit with his personal way of organizing his thoughts, with his style of writing, and the order or organization does not appear to have any real affect upon the meaning.

The Passover looks forward as well as backward. The Passover, as a lamb without spot or blemish being slaughtered is a picture of Jesus Christ dying on the cross for our sins. It also looks backward to the deliverance of Israel through the death of the firstborn, also a picture of Jesus Christ dying for our sins. When God saw the blood, he passed over the home which had been "washed" in the blood. It is not just a religious ceremony wihtout meaning.

And Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover: No son of foreigners [outsiders] shall eat of it; [Ex. 12:43]

In vv. 43–49, we have a couple of words here which are translated variously as stranger, sojourner, visitor and/or foreigner, all of which we will examine. However, so that we do not get bogged down for seeing the forest for the trees, the overriding principle is that one who has believed in Jesus Christ, the God of Israel; that person may partake of the Passover. The casual observer, the stranger, the foreigner who has not has no business as an unbeliever participating in this ritual. Observing the Jews as they partake in it is fine; but an unbeliever is not a part of God's plan and has not been washed with Christ's blood.

V. 43 has three words translated by the one English word foreigner (or stranger). The first two words are in the masculine singular noun construct and they mean every, all, the whole and son (an abbreviated definition from 2½ pages of Brown-Driver-Briggs). The key word is nêkâr (ר ָכ ֵנ ) [pronounced nay-KAWR], which means that which is foreign. Together the words mean all the sons of that which is foreign. It is usually used in a negative sense, sometimes with implied hostility or disassociation. It is used in conjunction with foreign gods, idols and altars. With the negative we will fudge somewhat and translate this no son of foreigners indicates that even after spending time with the Jews, living with them and traveling with them, they have not believed in Yahweh, the God of the Jews and the God of the universe. They have not become a part of Israel; they are still identified as being outsiders or foreigners.

V. 45 uses two different words, one which refers to a temporary resident and one which refers to a hired servant (to be covered a little later). Tôwshâb (or, tôwshâv) (ב ָש) [pronounced to-SHAWB], which is a temporary resident, an emigrant, one who actually lived on a piece of real estate but did not own it; a squatter; however dependance is implied here. He is more than a temporary visitor, but less than a naturalized citizen. This person might have fewer legal rights; also, his desire to remain is primarily tied to the land or the prosperity of the land rather than to the God of Israel. Today, this might be someone on a visa or an illegal resident who has come to stay.

In v. 48 (and v. 49) have yet another word, gêr (ר ֵ) [pronounced gare] which can be translated sojourner, stranger, foreigner, alien, guest or visitor. This person enjoys certain civil rights, but not property rights. This is generally used in a good sense. The Jews were aliens (gêr) in Egypt (Ex. 23:9), but it was God's will for them to be there. Prior to this, the Patriarchs in the land of Canaan were considered to be aliens because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full (Gen. 15:16). This term was applied to those who preferred to live with the Jews not for the land or the economic prosperity, but because they were tied to the Jewish religion; they expressed positive volition toward God's plan (Ex. 12:19 20:10 22:21 Lev. 16:29 17:8 18:26 19:10 20:2 23:22 Num. 19:10 35:15 Deut. 1:16 10:18, etc.). Moses names his son Gershom because he was a guest in the land of Midian (Ex. 2:22). Such a person had to be circumcised in order to partake of the Passover; the circumcision indicating that they believed in Yahweh, the God of Israel, the God of the universe.

Similarly two separate words in this passage for servant: ׳ebed (ד ∵ב ∵צ ) [pronounced EH-bed] is an indentured servant, a slave (found in v. 44); and sâkîyr (רי ̣כ ָ) [pronounced saw-KEER] is an adjective for hired; it has with it the conjunction so it does not modify the noun but it is used as a substantive, meaning hired servant. or a servant hired by the day or by the year (v. 45); a term not too different from hiring someone for contract labor. The former, having been circumcised, was allowed to partake of the Passover ritual and the latter was not. Again, it is strictly a matter of whether or not this person is a believer in Yahweh.

"But every man's servant bought with silver when you have circumcised him shall then he eat thereof." [Ex. 12:44]

The servant who has been bought and circumcised is a picture of one who has apprehended the salvation of Jesus Christ and that is one who may partake in the Passover. The Passover is meaningful to those who are true Israel, who are the spiritual seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who have followed them in regeneration. To anyone else, it is just some religious ritual ceremony.

The stranger is not allowed to participate. This is someone who has come through and possibly stopped with the Israelites for a meal. This speaks of an unregenerate person who is not been cleansed with the blood. In being there, he is able to see what occurs and is evangelized by watching the Passover, but since he is not a believer in Jesus Christ, he is not to take part in the ceremony. This is no different than our Lord's Supper, the Eucharist.

"In one house, it shall be eaten; you will not take forth out of the house any of the flesh to the outside and the bone of it you will not break." [Ex. 12:46]

Since the Passover lamb (or goat) speaks of Jesus Christ on the cross, God knew in the past that He would not suffer any broken bones on the cross; therefore, to retain the type, God told the sons of Israel not to break any bones of the Passover lamb. Jesus Christ would die for our sins inside Israel—inside the house of Israel, if you will. Jesus Christ is the only savior; there is no one from outside the house of Israel who qualifies as our savior. Psalm 34:20 reads: He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken. These passages and Num. 9:12 are fulfilled in John 19:36, which reads: The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs...For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken." Jesus is our Passover lamb, as Paul writes in I Cor. 5:7b: For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

This is a ritual, with great meaning, to be kept by Israel until the end of time. It is through this ritual which the gospel of Jesus Christ is learned. In this verse, as well as twice in v. 48, we have the verb ׳âsâh (ה ָ ָע), which means to do, to make. It is the verb used in creation to make something out of something. It is our concept of the word Passover which makes this word difficult to translate. It literally means to do, to perform the Passover. However, we do not do it any injustice to translate this to keep or to observe the Passover.

"And if a foreign guest who resides with you, a stranger who [wishes to] keep the Passover to Yahweh, then let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near to keep it. Then he will be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it." [Ex. 12:48]

The first use of ׳âsâh in this verse is in the Qal perfect (completed action) and a wish or desire is expressed (as per NRSV or The Emphasized Bible). This is a non-Jew who is going to observe the Passover rite; therefore, God must set up some rules pertaining to him. A person, in order to celebrate the Passover, which is celebrating their deliverance by the Savior from Egypt, must be a believer. The Jews are being taken from the land of the unregenerate to the land of the regenerate, just as we believers are taken out from the world and regenerated. The eating of the Passover lamb represents salvation just as circumcision represents salvation; therefore, the analogy would be meaningless to have unsaved acting as though they were saved. It is the same with the Eucharist—the ritual loses its reality when an unbeliever partakes of it. Anyone can be saved, even one who is not an Israelite, which is why a foreign guest may take part. However, in the Age of Israel, one who has believed in Jesus Christ often became an Israelite, which represents regeneration (or being born-again).

"One law will there be for the native and for the foreign guest in your midst." [Ex. 12:49]

Just as there is one salvation, one savior and one means of salvation, those who lived among the Jews were taught this symbolically through their rituals. This means that there will be only one way to observe the Passover and it is more than a nice little ritual that a foreigner participates in out of politeness to the family with whom he resides. It is a solemn ritual which explains the most important thing to any unbeliever and that is salvation and the deliverance by God. This is not to be taken lightly. When one wants to participate, and he finds out that circumcision is involved, then he may reconsider. Only a person highly motivated and positive toward the God of the Universe would submit to circumcision in order to observe the Passover. In this way, the reality and the importance of this ritual is maintained.

Thus did all the sons of Israel, as Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. [Ex. 12:50]

God set up the Passover to illustrate salvation, and to act as a memorial to one of the greatest events in history wherein the God of Israel revealed Himself as the God of the Universe and identified Himself with the Jews.

And it came to pass on the very same day that Yahweh brought forth the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt according to their armies. [Ex. 12:51]

The last phrase means that they moved out in an organized fashion. When they participated in the Passover, it was organized and when they left Egypt it was organized. Yahweh is not a God of confusion or disorganization (I Cor. 14:33).

Introduction: Chapter 13 should seem easy and short by comparison to Ex. 12. It is half as long and deals with fewer topics. Moses expands upon what God had told him concerning the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Also, the Jews are to tell their sons about the exodus and what God had done for them and that this was to be passed on for generations. The mistaken idea is that everything was passed on orally for hundreds of years. Today, the Bible is found in hundreds of versions, in every book store, on CD ROM's, on computer programs, etc. However, it is God's method for His Word to be communicated orally. It is fine if you feel a need to carefully check out your pastor-teacher to be certain that he is teaching you accurately. In fact, at first, you should be quite careful of that. However, only those who are pastor-teachers and have similar teaching gifts need to be examining the Word personally. There is nothing which indicates that the common Chrisitan is to go to the Word an dig out everything for himself. That is the job of the pastor-teacher to be passed on orally. And every father and mother has a solemn responsibility to teach their own children; a responsibility which preceeds any other. If someone, after years of study under a good pastor teacher, is motivated to dig into the Word, this is fine. However, it is often our cults and bits and pieces of false doctrine which have resulted from various people's self study (they were too arrogant to learn under a pastor teacher). They tend to take one or two verses out of context; they magnify these verses beyond all the others in the Bible; and then they distort Scripture to fit in with their pet doctrines. Such people do not teach the entire Word of God verse by verse, line by line, in context, in order. Too many people would see their flaws.

We do not know exactly how many times God has spoken to Moses. Much of the previous few chapters were spoken to Moses all at once, although it was separated into three plagues and it appeared as though God had spoken to Moses several times. This appears as though God is speaking to Moses for the first time as the Jews leave on their exodus from Egypt. Moses does not demonstrate the lack of confidence that he did originally; he is not going to God and asking that Aaron speak to the Israelites or that Aaron lead the Israelites; his confidence level in God is strong and he is beginning to understand that God has chosen him to lead the Jews.

"Sanctify to me every first-born all the removed from the womb among the sons of Israel, among men and among beasts; it is mine." [Ex. 13:2]

I made an attempt at a literal translation here; the gist is fairly clear—all those who are the first-born to the sons of Israel were to be santified to God, for he passed over them when he killed the first-born of the Egyptians.

God is setting appart His first-born to himself. The word used here is the Pi'el imperative, second masculine singular of qâdash (ש ַד ָק ), which means make clean, pronounce clean, hallow or dedicate, set appart for divine use, shielded from profane usẹ It is a separation from the profane unto God (although that is a derived meaning and not the primary meaning). People or things are set aside or set appart for use in the worship of God. The Pi'el is an intensification of the Qal stem. This is most often found in the second person and here it is directed toward the head of the household, the male. This is spoken to Moses, but, by application, it applies to every male head of the household. See (the short) Doctrine of Sanctification. The abbreviated version is below:

A Brief Look at Sanctification in the Old Testament

1. Sanctification from the standpoint of man:

a. Eternal Sanctification: When we believe in Jesus Christ (or Jehovah of the Old Testament), we are eternally set apart to God.

b. Temporal Sanctification: After salvation, when we fall out of fellowship, we get back into fellowship by naming our sins to God. As we grow spiritually, we are sanctified in our spiritual growth.

c. Ultimate Sanctification: When we receive our resurrection body in the end time.

2. Sanctification from the standpoint of God:

a. God sets something aside for Himself. We might reasonbly say, God sets something aside to be in service to Him or to glorify Him.

3. The primary Hebrew word rendered sanctification is qâdash (שַד ָק) [pronounced kaw-DAHSH], which means consecrate, sanctify, dedicate, hallow, set apart. These are its Qal meanings. It is also spelled qâdêsh (ש̤ד ָק) [pronounced kaw-DAYSH]. Strong's #6942 BDB #872.

4. To consecrate is the opposite of to make unclean, to defile. The word for making unclean is ţâmê (א ֵמ ָט) [pronounced taw-MAY], which means to make unclean, to be unclean, to defile. In the Piel, it generally means to declare or to pronounce unclean. Strong's #2930 BDB #379.

5. Sanctification (or consecration) is the opposite of defilement and profaning. Lev. 21:1–15

6. Gen. 2:3–4 is the first occurrence of qâdash. Here, God sets the Sabbath (Saturday) apart as something special, something different; it will stand as a memorial for all time as a testimony to God’s creation. Even the most resolute heathen follow a seven-day work week pattern. Nothing is said about man resting from his work at this point in time, as Adam doesn’t work. God provided everything necessary for Adam in six days. In any case, it is interesting to note that, even under perfect environment, apart from sin, the Sabbath was established as set apart (or sanctified) to God.

7. In Israel, God took the Levites as His own, instead of to the firstborn of Israel. This taught the Israelites that there is substitution involved in sanctification. Num. 3:12–13 8:17

8. Things which were sanctified in the Old Testament:

a. The people of Israel at the foot of Mount Sinai; their clothes were to be clean and they were not to have intimate relations with women. Ex. 19:14–15

b. Apparently Mount Sinai was consecrated, which means that the Israelites could not go up onto the mountain (Ex. 19:23). This is because this is where Moses communed with God. Even though the people were ceremonially clean, they were not truly clean, and could not have direct contact with God (this also foreshadows Jesus Christ, as the only man Who could have direct contact with God the Father).

c. The Sabbath Day and the Sabbath year were to be consecrated or sanctified. Ex. 20:8–11 31:13–17 Lev. 25:10

d. The priests, the Tabernacle and the furniture of the Tabernacle were all sanctified.

e. The people of God were sanctified.

9. The biggest mistake of Moses was striking the rock twice rather than speaking to it, in order to produce water (Num. 20:2–11). God would not allow Moses to go into the land because he did not treat God as sanctified. Num. 20:12 27:14 Deut. 32:51

10. When Israel was about to cross the Jordan, Joshua told the people to sanctify themselves the day before. Joshua 3:5

11. In conclusion, sanctification, in the Old Testament, is presented as something which is set apart; something which is different from all else; something which is different from this natural life. Our sanctification identifies us with God, who is separate from this world

Obviously, Moses cannot sanctify the first-born to God; God is telling him to mandate that his people sanctify their first-born. This is a metonymy where the action is put in instead of what is supposed to be said to be done. A fuller translation, with this nuance, would be: Speak to the sons of Israel and tell them to sanctify to me every first-born...

God has redeemed these first-born. All of the first-born in Egypt died that these might live. Therefore, they are to live to God. The analogy is clear. Israel was delivered from bondage, from slavery, through the death of the first-born, just as we were delivered from the slave market of sin through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since their first-born were redeemed (paid for), they were to live unto God, just as we are to live unto God as we have been paid for. Rom. 6:22: But now, having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive you benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. Tit. 2:14 (which quotes Psalm 130:8): Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. Rom. 6:6: Knowing this, that our old man [the old sin nature] was crucified with [Him], that our body of sin might be rendered inoperative that we should no longer be slaves to sin. Heb. 13:12a: Therefore, Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered. Heb. 10:10: By this we will have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And Moses said to the people, "You are to remember this day on which you came forth from Egypt out of the house of slavery [lit., slaves], that Yahweh with the strength of [his] hand brought you forth from here. No leavened [bread] will be eaten." [Ex. 13:3]

In Ex. 12:1–13, our Lord explained the Passover to Moses and Aaron. In Ex. 12:14–20, He explained the Feast of the Unleavened Bread to them. Moses has explained to the Jews the Passover (Ex. 12:21–27). Now he will convey to them the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Just as our Lord in His strength endured the judgement for our sins and thereby delivered us from slavery to our old sin nature, our Lord by the strength of His hand delivered the Jews out of slavery to Egypt.

Yâtsâ’ (א ָצ ָי) [pronounced yaw-TSAW] is found twice in this verse. It means go out, come out. The Greek translation of this word is exerchomai (ἐξέρχομαι) [pronounced ex-ER-khom-ai]. A noun cognate for this is

ὲξοδος, which we write as Exodus. Yâtsâ’ is found first in the Qal perfect, referring to their departure from Egypt as a completed action. They will be remembering and looking back on this. This verb is later found in the Hiphil perfect where God caused them to be brought out of Egypt.

What was occurring to the Jews was doctrine to them. God was doing something so historic and so important that this would be one of the most well-known events, if not the most well-known event of that millennium. The Exodus declared the power and purpose of God. It sets the Jewish race apart from all others. None of us has ever lived through an event which was that spectacular and that important, but we experience certain things in our lives which affect the entire direction of our lives, yet, at the time, they appear to be rather unextraordinary occurrences. The Jews here are in the midst of something significant beyond their comprehension. Moses is telling them to put the events of this day (and of the previous two months) deep into their souls. For us, it is like learning an important piece of doctrine. It sustains and guides and orients us. This event would do the same for them if they would keep it deep within their souls.

"And it shall come to pass, when Yahweh, thy God

, shall bring you into the land of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, [the land] which He swore to your fathers to give to you; a land flowing with milk and honey. Then you will observe [lit., serve] this ritual [lit., service] in this month." [Ex. 13:5]

Moses is connecting the ritual with its meaning. God never has given us a ritual without it being fraught with meaning or without the meaning being plainly stated. The Jews are being delivered from slavery by God's hand. God is establishing, through Moses, a solemn celebration to commemorate this day. Moses, as this day is occurring, tells them what the rites will be so that the celebration in the future wil be firmly connected to the event that it signifies.

"[For] seven days you will eat unleavened cakes and on the seventh [day there shall be] a festival to Yahweh." [Ex. 13:6]

Moses is now telling the elders how the Feast of the Unleavened Bread will be done. As we have seen, God gave this information to Moses in Ex. 12 and now Moses is relaying it to the people.

"Unleavened cakes will be eaten for seven days; and there will be no leavened cakes seen with you and there will be no leaven seen with you in all your borders." [Ex. 13:7]

Leaven has been covered. It is a picture of corruption of what is pure and true. This does not mean that there is anything inherently evil about yeast or leaven; it is merely a symbol of corruption. God is setting up mandates to be followed thrugh Moses, each of which has specific meaning and purpose.

"And you will tell your son on that say, saying 'This is because of that which Yahweh did for me when he brought me forth out of Egypt.'" [Ex. 3:8]

This is the famous oral tradition. It would be 1500 or more years before there would be a completed canon of Scripture where everything that we need to know is in the written word. So, until then, God had to teach by other and different means. In that day there were rituals and feasts and sacrifices and priests to teach God's Word to the people. All these things had meaning and a parent then, as he is today, was obligated to teach his son(s) (and daughters) what life is really about. This bit of training has all but left our homes. Men and women read books and follow all these methods prior to birth and during birth in insure that they will have a healthy baby; and then they neglect the most important thing a child has and that is the child's soul. There is nothing more important to God on this earth than the training of the little ones. They need to know from the very beginning what is the foundation for their life. We no longer have these feasts and other training aides, so, if anything, this increases the importance of properly training a child. However—and this is where many go awry—a strong oral tradition does not preclude written documents and records; specifically, God's Word. Oral teaching and written information have never been mutually exclusive. In fact, if anything, they go hand-in-hand. God's command here was to be carried out as long as the son of a son of a son of one in the exodus generation knows enough to relay what had occurred and what God id on their behalf.

One of the reasons for the change in dispensations and methods was the completed canon of Scripture, an event every bit as important and dramatic as the Exodus; in fact, even more so. This completed canon of Scripture explains a lot of things. For instance, why do we have priests in the Old Testament and why is there not a definitive list of spiritual gifts? Priests, in the Old Testament, represented man to God through their continual animal sacrifices. These sacrifices all pointed forward to the death of our Lord. However, these sacrifices in and of themselves, did nothing on our behalf. They were training aides. They are not unlike a first grade reader. "See Jane run and see Dick play" is of very limited cultural and intellectual value; however, on the first grade level, it is of utmost importance, an important step in the literacy of any child. The sacrifices were as important and the priests were involved in these as well as with all aspects of tabernacle (and later, temple) worship (things which also spoke of Jesus Christ). Today, with the completed canon of Scripture we have believers who have spent their lives developing lexicons for the Hebrew and the Greek, worked on translations, textual criticism, etc. There are a vast array of people whose names most Christians do not even know upon whose shoulders I and every other teacher of God's Word stand and that without whom our work would be trivial and almost devoid of scholarship. No one had a clue, even during the close of the first century, that not only would these gifts be given by God the Holy Spirit, but that they would be of the most important gifts given out by God the Holy Spirit. It requires great dedication and strength of character to pursue such thankless professions and avocations. These scholars of phenomenal intellectual capabilities are led by the Holy Spirit and lead lives almost bereft of human adoration and encouragement to develop tools that pastors find invaluable (those who really teach the Word); tools which have every bit to do with your spiritual growth as anything else in your life; yet how many Christians even have a clue as to what textual criticism is or as to the sacrifices thousands of holy men have done in thankless avenues of Biblical scholarship. As I gaze at my library about me, the books which required, in many cases, the better part of a lifetime of some person whose name to you is completely unknown, are absolutely invaluable to me in my study of God's Word. There are perhaps twenty or thirty of these that without which, I could do little or nothing in the pursuit of God's Truth. In order for me to grow, I required a pastor who's tireless dedication was often unknown and taken for granted. He stood upon the shoulders of several theologians and Biblical scholars. It all just as Paul has described in I Cor. 14 where we are all part of the same body and that one portion cannot function apart from the other portions. Every gift and every life is important and meaningful and is fraught with divine direction. But, I digress...

V. 9 contains a phrase not used up until this time in the Bible, and a word used only twice before. Tôrâh (ה ָרֹ ) [pronounced to-RAH] means instruction, direction, law; so far, it has only been seen in Gen. 26:5 (the verse which indicates that there were some clear laws or instructions given by God prior to Exodus) and Ex. 12:49. This is the first occasion of the Law of Yahweh in the Bible. So far, God's Laws were not a list of things which the Jews were not supposed to do, but a ceremonial organization designed to teach the crucifixion of our Lord almost 1500 years prior to its occurrance in history.

"And it will be to you for a sign upon your hand and for a memorial on your forehead [lit., between your eyes] in order that the law of Yahweh may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand Yahweh did bring you forth out of Egypt." [Ex. 13:9]

This is a bit cryptic here, which leads me to believe that not all of what Moses said was recorded here. Dt. 6:6-9 has more of what Moses said here: "All these words which I am commanding you today shall be on your heart and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead [lit., between your eyes]. And you will write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." Even the most hardened of believers should be able to read that and get a clear picture as to how important God's Word was at that time.

These verse got distorted over the years. God is not invoking anyone to write Scripture on their hands or on their foreheads; nor is He instructing us to make some kind of clothing or ornament to contain special Scriptures. This got distorted by the time of our Lord. Religious men wore these small black leather boxes that contained four passages of Scripture and they were attached to the forehead and to the left arm by leather straps. Along with all of the other overt religious things that they did, these accessories were a source of pride to the very religious (see Matt. 23:5; the item in question is often translated a phylactery.

God's Word should be a part of our daily work and life. His Word should permeate our frontal lobes; our minds (it is very common in the Jewish language to take a physical part of the body and have it represent a mental process or some sort—such as heart, kidneys, etc.). We are faced with human viewpoint for 16–20 hours every day of our lives and we are encouraged to think in terms of human wisdom and viewpoint. God tells us that His Word should be written on our foreheads, between our eyes, in our souls. Everything that we say should reveal a knowledge of God's Word. Just as there are three classifications of sins, overt, verbal and mental, there are three classifications of areas where our knowledge of God's Word comes to play in our lives.

"And you will observe this statute in its appointed time, from year to year [lit. from days to days]." [Ex. 13:10]

God's Law and His Word are more than lists of moral precepts; the most important thing for God to reveal to us is (1) this is the true God of the Universe, the creator of the earth and all of mankind; and, (2) Jesus Christ, the first-born of God the Father, an innocent lamb, would die on our behalf that we might be delivered from the bondage to the slavery of our inner nature.

The plural of days often means one year, as in Gen. 24:55 40:4 Lev. 25:29 etc. This is why most translations do not translate this portion of v. 10 literally.

"And it will come to pass when Yahweh

brings you into the land of the Canaanite, as he swore to you and to your fathers, and shall give to you..." [Ex. 13:11]

This is an awful place for a verse break, as this sentence is completed by v. 12.

"...that you will set apart all first-born [lit., all first opening the womb] to Yahweh; and of all the firstborn [lit., of the first opening] of the offspring of the beasts which you will have shall pertain to Yahweh." [Ex. 13:12]

The setting apart of the first-born to God has a two-fold purpose. The first, and by far the most important, is a type, recognizing the importance of the first-born, as Jesus our Lord will be called the first-born of God. Secondly, in any family, the first-born child is a leader of sorts to his younger siblings and he must be oriented to God's plan in order ot properly influence those who follow him from the womb. Moses, in speaking this to the people, relays God's message of Ex. 13:2.

"But of every firstborn [lit., of the first opening] of a donkey you will redeem with a lamb or if you will not redeem it then you will break its neck; but every first-born of men among your sons, you will redeem. [Ex. 13:13]

God has continually made promises to the Jew about the land of Canaan. This is a brief promise for the near future. For all of the prophecy found in the Bible, some of it is for the near future, some is for the far future, and some has a double fulfillment, both near and far. At a more opportune time, we will take up this doctrine oof prophecy.

Because God spared the firstborn of the Jews, the first-born belongs to Him. God killed the first-born of every beast and of every family of the unbelieving Egyptians and (presumably, if there were any) of any unbelieving Jews. Since he spared these first-born, then they belong to Him; they are dedicated to Yahweh; set apart in service to Him. In order for God to spare the lives of the first-born men, they must be redeemed or paid for. This is obviously a picture of Jesus Christ paying for our sins on the cross. Jesus Christ also died for all unbelievers; He paid the price of their redemption as well. My educated guess concerning the ass is this: the ass is Pharaoh, whose will (neck—a symbol of man's volition, as in stiff neck) Yahweh broke. Still, even unbelieveing Pharaoh was redeemed by Christ's death on the cross. V. 17 seems to bear out this interpretation.

The donkey is one of the unclean beasts and this is a situation where the animals which are not sacrified to God (the unclean animals) must therefore be redeemed, just as we as unclean must be redeemed. Here, donkey stands in for all unclean beasts, even though only one of them is mentioned here (see also Num. 18:15 34:20)

In vv.12–13 and 15, we have three different words for first-born. One I believe is a play on words. The first-born is to be separated to Yahweh and the first-born is also referred to in these verses as the first opening or the first separation of the womb.

At this point, we may want to look on the full-on Doctrine of Redemption (briefly covered in Gen. 48:16).

"And it shall be when you son will ask you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?'" then you will say to him, 'With strength of hand did Yahweh bring us forth out of Egypt, out of the house of slaves.'" [Ex. 13:14]

The question of the son is abbreviated here, but he is wondering "What is the meaning of all this?" or "Why are we doing this?" Every ritual, every sacrifice, every celebration was fraught with meaning. It was designed to evangelize. It was designed for the young people who are taking part in the celebration to stop and to ask their fathers just what it is that they are participating in. Everything that we do and that they did was to provoke conversation and questions. There was more than tradition and heritage involved here; this involved the eternal salvation of their very own children.

"'And it came to pass when Pharaoh had shown himself too hardened to let us go then Yahweh slayed all the first-born in the land of Egypt; the first-born of men and the first-born of beasts. For this reason, I am sacrificing to Yahweh all the males who first open the womb; furthermore every first-born of my sons I must redeem.'" [Ex. 13:15]

God makes it easy for the parents. He tells them here just exactly what to say when their children ask what are they observing these feasts and these sacrifices.

"'And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and for the frontlets between your eyes that with the strength of hand did Yahweh bring us forth out of Egypt.'" [Ex. 13:16]

Pharaoh was hardened toward Yahweh and toward the Jews and thought that the future of Egypt depended upon the Jews remaining there as slaves. He is the ass with the stiff neck which must be broke. The neck on an animal will turn toward whatever direction the animal wants to go in. This is a picture of volition. A stiff neck refers to negative volition; and in this case, the broken neck refers to broken volition. That is, the Pharaoh doesn't want the Jews to leave; that is not what he personally wants; but he is a broken and defeated man who has run out of options and lets them go against his volition. See also Gen. 27:40 Ex. 32:9 33:3 Dt. 9:6 28:48 31:27 II Kings 17:14

Again, the importance of training the future generations so that they do not forget Who Yahweh is and how they were redeemed by Him and how God has given them the land. Nothing is as important as the spiritual training of our young people. I recall a popular idea from the sixties and seventies, one I heard expressed many times. They might take a child to a couple of churches and let him decide when he is ready. That is an evil philosophy foisted upon a child by parents with no true spiritual direction. You do not allow a child to be verbally impolite to others throughout his young age and fiugre that he will later decide on his own that this is improper. You do not allow a child to hurt other children, allowing him the choice in the future to perhaps curb this behavior if he decides that is right for him. You do not allow a child to touch a hot stove so that he can choose in the future not to. You don't allow a child to run out in the middle of the street without looking, figuring that when he gets older he will be able to make the proper choice all on his own. You do not allow a child to steal as a youngester, speaking to him about such actions in a non-judgemental way, allowing him the benefit to determine if this kind of behavior is correct or no. The spiritual direction of a child is much more important than these things. If you are concerned about your child's volition, I can guarantee you that he will use it when it comes to spiritual things. No matter how well trained a child is in spiritual matters, they will always retain their own volition. Furthermore, if your life is a mess morally and spiritually, your child may reject your faith and Jesus Christ because the most important person(s) in his life is a failure in moral and spiritual things. It is our duty as parents to lead our children spiritually and if we are not willing to do that, then we should not ever have children in the first place. This includes a mother who has been abandoned by a worthless husband; she is not to sleep around with other men (or even another man). It might be proper for her to remarry, but it is never proper to lead any child to believe that it is okay to engage in sex outside of marriage. Prior to having children, a woman must commit to those children, even if this means that when she discovers that the love of her life is this worthless piece of crap, that she still cannot go out and have sex. And, above all, both parents have a duty to raise that child in the instruction and the admonition of the Lord.

And it came to pass when Pharaoh had let the people go that God did not lead them by the land-way of the Philistines, although it was near, for God had said, "So that the people are not dismayed when they see war and turn back to Egypt." [Ex. 13:17]

The Israelites could have entered the land in a very short time; however, they had been slaves for four hundred years and passive and it would take them a generation before they would be willing to fight for their freedom. God knew exactly what he was dealing with and made provision for that. Otherwise, had the Jews had more character, they could have marched right into the land of Canaan and taken it from the Canaanites.

So God took the people round the desert way of the Reed Sea, and the sons of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt. [Ex. 13:18]

The Hebrew word for armed is translated variously in battle array or in military columns of five. They trusted God and still marched with weapons. My thought is that their children need to see the weapons and need to live around them. The present generation was too ruined by slavery to use them or to fight bravely, but the next generation will be able to handle what God has for them.

For those of you who believe in peace at any price and that war is always evil, you will despise the Old Testament and parts of the New. There were nations which were totally and wholly degenerate whose degeneracy threatened to spread throughout the world and infect every nation. This is just like a cancer an the best way to deal with a cancer is to cut it out entirely. The Jews will do this over the next few generations.

We do not know exactly which route was taken by the Jews. Although we have several specific sites mentioned, such as Succoth and Etham, in v. 20 (see also Ex. 14:2), we can only today guess where these locations may have been. The Hebrew word used is the construct of yâm (ם ָי) [pronounced yawm] and it originally came from an unused root word which meant to roar (as the sound of the waves of the sea crashing down). It is used primarily of seas but it can refer to a large river (Isa. 19:5 21:1 Jer. 51:36 Nahum 3:8). It is modified by the word çûwph (ףס) [pronounced soof] and it means reeds. We are likely dealing with the Red Sea although it would have to be a portion which is near some fresh water so that the reeds (or, papyrus) were able to grow. At that time, this place was well-known. Although this could refer to a specific part of the Nile, that is unlikely as the Nile is normally identified with the Hebrew word for river ye’ôr (רֹא ׃י) [pronounced yeh-ORE]. This is further supported by Ex. 10:13 & 19 where a strong west wind picks up the locusts and carries them to the Sea of Reeds, making it due east of Raamses. For several reasons outlined in ZPEB, vol. 5, pp. 46–47, the area transversed by the Hebrews was very likely immediately south of Lake Ballah (or possibly south of Lake Timsah); and, at that time, there must have been a tributary or two from the Nile river in that area which was the source of the reeds.

Furthermore, this Sea of reeds should not be confused with the sea that Moses caused to part in Ex. 14. They are obviously somewhere near one another, but they are not the same thing. In Ex. 14, the sea wherein God performs His miracle is nowhere called the Reed Sea (nor is it called the Red Sea, for that matter). The Jews are led along a freshwater tributary in order to clean themselves and to have water to drink. Once we get to Ex 14:9, the Jews have crossed over to the sea (possibly the Red Sea).

And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he [Joseph] had extracted a solemn oath of the sons of Israel [lit., in the solemn swearing of an oath, he had caused the sons of Israel to solmenly swear] saying, "God will certainly attend to you [or, concern Himself with you] [lit., in visiting you, God will visit you]; so then you will carry up my bones from hence with you." [Ex. 13:19]

This verse carries two verbs used two times each. The first is shâba‛ (ע ַב ָש ) [pronounced shaw-BAH] and it is closely related to the number seven, which is a sign of completion or a sign of perfection; it means to take a solemn oath. It is first found in the Hi-phil infinitive absolute and then in the Hiphil perfect. An infinitive absolute is a verbal noun which can stand on its own; but most often it is used to mean surely, certainly, definitely when accompanied by the same verb in a different morphology. The second is the word pâqad (ד ַק ָ) [pronounced paw-KAD] and it means visit, attend to, appoint. It is first found in the Qal infinitive absolute, and is used in the same way the infinitive absolute of shâba‛ was used. Immediately afterward, it is found in the Qal imperfect, indicating continuing action (and God did attend to and visit Israel throughout her history as a client nation to God). My guess is that this would stand as a record of number of repeated verbs in a single verse; but I have much more Scripture to cover before I can make that statement unequivocally.

In some ways, Joseph's bones was the Bible of the Jews for the past four centuries. His bones were at least their training aid. Just like the feast of the unleavened breat, the sacrifices of the lambs, the consecration of the fist-born, Joseph's bones were to provoke conversation to elicit meaning for their existence. The Jews remained in Egypt for many centuries and became accustomed to slavery. Only Joseph's bones and the increased viciousness of the slavery caused them to move from Egypt. Joseph knew that God had given him and his progeny the land of Israel and that Egypt a only a temporary dwelling place for the Jew. Therefore, as a testimoney to all future generations, Joseph would not allow his bones to be buried in Egypt but wanted them to remain above ground and buried in the land when the Jews settled in the land which God gave them (see Gen. 50:24–26).

And they set out from Succoth and camped in Etham, at the edge of the desert. [Ex. 13:20]

Most of Egypt, from what I understand, is desert. With the average rainfall being less than six inches per year, the fertile part of Egypt is around its rivers, primarily the Nile. There was probably a very clear demarcation between the fertile area and the desert. The Jews are traveling Southeast, although the promised land is Northeast. Whether they realize that they are not going in the right direction or not is not mentioned here. Etham was apparently the last stop prior to entering into the desert. This word might mean fort and it was very likely a a fortification on the edge of the desert; a first point of protection and defense for the Egyptians. This bordered the desert of Shur (Ex. 15:22) and a portion of that desert was known as the desert of Etham (Num. 33:6–8).

Now Yahweh was going before them, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light that they might journey day and night. [Ex. 13:21]

Jesus Christ constantly led the Jews through the desert. Egypt, being as dry as it was, had few if any clouds. To most of those who read this, a cloud overhead is not that impressive; however, it was every bit as much of a miracle as the pillar of fire at night. This pictures our walk as lead by the Holy Spirit; day and night we are guided—the trick is our interior defenses and trust built up by living in God's Word. From this, we need patience.

He did not cause the removal of the pillar of cloud by day nor [lit., and] the pillar of fire by night from before the people. [Ex. 13:22]

Mûwsh (ש מ ) [pronounced moosh] means depart, remove. It is in the 3rd masculine singular, Hiphil imperfect. It is a minor linguistic point, but you have a dual subject the way some Bibles translate this but the verb is in the singular. Furthermore, the verb is in the causative stem, meaning someone caused the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire not to be removed. Furthermore, due to the close proximity of the name of Yahweh (in the previous verse) we can easily infer that He is the subject of this verse. If you wonder why does it not say that He caused them to remain? Although that would be a less cumbersome way of saying this, the way it actually reads brings great emphasis to what is being said. For God has told us "I will never leave you nor forsake you." (Deut. 31:6 Heb. 13:5). If you want cumbersome, examine the exegesis of Heb. 13:5.

Moses, in recording this, realizes that this is not the quickest way, but he has also learned to trust God over the past few weeks.

Jesus Christ is the manifest person of the Godhead and He was tht pillar of fire and pillar of cloud. The Jews were mostly on foot and there were women and children with them. There were also a lot of them. Therefore, their traveling would be generally slow. They have a particular place to reach in the Reed Sea tributary (is this the right word?) before Pharaoh and his army attack them.

Introduction: Chapter 14 is the portion of the Cecil B. DeMille film that we all recall. Pharaoh will harden his heart and pursue the Israelites and the Israelites will walk through the sea on dry land. As Pharaoh and his army pursue them, the water is brought back down and it drowns them. Throughout history, men have tried to naturalize and soften portions of the Bible to make them more palatable to the unbeliever. Unbelievers might believe in mental telepathy, people from other planets (either living here or visiting on occasion), astrology, methods of attaining good luck, etc., but damn if they are going to believe that the God of the Universe can do the miraculous. However, if you remove the miraculous from the Bible, you remove God from the Bible. This does not mean that we have to see miracles every day to believe in God. Miracles are essentially rare things occurring only during specific time periods in the Bible. Generally speaking, when a dispensation is changed or when one period of a dispensation is being changed, then God will cause several miracles to draw attention to this fact. Most often, these miracles are entrusted to one or several men, who will use these miracles as their letter of reference from God to verify that they are actually from God. Once they have established themselves as men from God, the ability to perform those miracles is often removed because it is unnecessary. Had these miracles not occurred, then there would have been numerous writings from that time period contradicting the miraculous aspect. Such writings would have been popularly received as Christians are most often in the minority and anything to discredit Christianity would have welcomed by many. However, the writings which sprung up during the time of miracles (such as during the first century ad) never disputed the miracles but disputed God's Word instead.

Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel that they turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baalzephon, over against it shall you camp by the sea." [Ex. 14:1–2]

The Jews are near cities where they could be observed by various Egyptians. These Egyptians will see them changing course, coubling back, and encamped right at the sea, as though they are confused and cannot proceed further.

Then Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel, "They are entangled in the land; the desert has closed in around them." [Ex. 14:3]

Even though many caravans can find their way in and out of Egypt; even though the original Jewish settlers found their way easily through the desert to Egypt, Pharaoh will believe that the Jews have become confused and disoriented by the desert. Some people do have no sense of direction and this is what Pharaoh assumed about the Jews and their leader Moses. He has discounted God from this movement. When spiritual information is given to the unbeliever, the unbeliever only has a short amount of time during which to act until the Word of God is removed form him. This is what happens with Pharaoh. He reaches a point where he is miserable and defeated and he understands for a few brief hours that the God of the Jews is the true God of the Universe; but, once the pressure is removed, he returns to his heathen state. In fact, when he does, his latter state is worse than the first because he has accumulated more negative volition toward God (called scar tissue by R.B. Thieme). Pharaoh has just seen ten miraculous plagues which could have come from no one else but God; and now he thinks that God cannot lead these people out of the desert? He doesn't even factor God into the equation. The Word of God has been snatched from his heart (Matt. 13:4, 19) and he is a more degenerate believer than he was in the first place (Matt. 12:43–45 II Tim. 3:13 II Peter 2:20).

So I will strengthen the heart of Pharaoh and he will chase after them, that I may receive honor over Pharaoh and over all his forces and the Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh." And they did so. [Ex. 14:4]

The Jews left Pharaoh in his palace a beaten and destroyed man. Many in his position would have committed suicide by now and have ended it all. Such is all that is left to him as he refused to believe in and yield to the God of the Jews, Jesus Christ. However, God is giving him enough strength to continue on in his blind hatred of the Jews. God's purpose is to evangelize even more Egyptians. The Jews are within the site of several Egyptian settlements and what is about to occur with affect several in those encampments.

God's directions to Moses are very specific and Moses, being the genius that he is in geography as well as in many other areas, Moses recalled exactly where God wanted them to be. This was a matter of being in God's directive and geographical will. It was not a direct route to where God was taking them, due to the hardness of the hearts of the sons of Israel; however, it was the most direct route that they could take, considering.

When it was told to the king of Egypt that the people had fled [away suddenly], then the mind of Pharaoh and of his servants was changed toward the people [the Jews] and they [Pharaoh and his servants] said, "What is this we have done that we have sent [away] Israel from serving us?" [Ex. 14:5]

There are a couple of verbs that I would like to examine here. The 3rd person, masculine singular, Qal perfect of bârach (ח ַר ָ) [pronounced baw-RAKH] and it means bolt, flee suddenly, drive away. People is in the masculine singular, therefore it is the subject of this verb. Pharaoh has been given additional strength by God in order to oppose Him. Every atheist alive is given the daily provisions and strength by God to actively oppose Him. All those who are negative toward God, including the insidious religious types are given enough strength each day to oppose the living God. Pharaoh was a beaten man and God continued to strengthen his ability to actively oppose Him. Therefore, he was strong enough to change his mind about letting the Jews go. The second verb is the 1st person plural, Piel perfect of shâlach (ח ַל ָש) [pronounced shaw-LAKH] and this means to send out, to send for, to send away. Context determines the direction, if you will, of the sending. This is in the intensive Piel, meaning that they were forced out, they were sent away, they were dismissed. Notice that these two verbs rhyme. The final verb in this verse is one that we have studied before, the Qal infinitive construct, 1st person plural suffix of ‛âbad (ד ַב ָע) [pronounced aw-BAD] and it means serve. We have seen this verb in Ex. 12:31 13:5 and it means serve, work. The Jews have gone from serving Pharaoh and the Egyptians to serving the Lord. With his added strength, Pharaoh stands up, smites himself in the head, and says what have I done? His servants follow suit.

Was changed is the Niphal imperfect; the Niphal is the passive stem, but it can also stress the individual effect on each member of the group; it also is a verb stem which expresses progression or development. Pharaoh and his men have just allowed the Jews to leave and all of them have suffered the loss of their first-born. In being together as they are, they begin to talk things over, to express their anger toward Yahweh and their hatred toward the Jews. In this venting of their anger, they talk each other into changing their minds about the Jews and just allowing them to exit Egypt unscathed. They have lost their major economic commodoty: their slaves and they are progressively changing their minds about this.

So he prepared [lit., yoked] his chariot and his army [lit., people] those he took with him. [Ex. 14:6]

Pharaoh knows that the Jews have doubled back once and that they were moving slowly and not in any sort of a straight course. He would rather slaughter these Jews than allow them to go. Therefore, he gets all of his people, those who still support him, to prepare themselves for war. The verb which is often translated made ready, prepare is the Qal imperfect of ’âçar (ר ַס ָא) [pronounced aw-SAR] and it means bind, tie, imprison. He was attaching his chariot to his horses; or binding the chariot to the horses. However, this verb also applies to his people. They were brought along under coercion—they were bound and imprisoned, so to speak. These Egyptians may not have had his strength, having endured the same torments and plagues that he did, but they were coerced into joining him. There is the lâmed preposition to, for, in regards to that I am having trouble placing in this translation. It falls between people and took.

From Manners and Customs of the Bible, pp. 65–66, we have the following description: The Egyptian chariot was a framework of wood, nearly semicircular in front, having straight sides and open behind. The front was of wood and the sides were strengthened and ornamented with leather and metal bindings. The floor was of rope net-work, to give a springy footing. The fittings of the inside and the harness were of raw hide or tanned leather. On the sides quivers and bow-cases were fastened, crossing each other. The wheels were low, have six spoke, and were kept on the axle by a leather thong or lynch-pin. There was no sea in the chariot. The number of horses to each chariot was two. The chariot of the king did not differ materially from ordinary war-chariots. He, however, usually rode alone into battle, having the reins fastened around his waist, leaving both hands free to manage his weapons of war. Jehu seems to have imitated the custom of Egyptian monarchs in driving his own chariot. See II KIngs 9:20.

And he took 600 selected chariots and all of the [other] chariots of Egypt with third men over all of them. [Ex. 14:7]

Selected is the Qal passive participle of bâchar (ר ַח ָ) [pronounced baw-KHAR] and it means, choose, try (test), select. It is a verb, but in the participle, it acts as a verbal adjective. My impression here is that when he is about to mobilize his army, he puts together the very best chariots, having officers and high ranking warriors to man them, and then he finds that he has enough men who have come, many out of personal revenge thinking that they can attack the Jews when their fight is really with God, to enlist all of the chariots for war.

In the Hebrew, the Shîyn/lâmed combination means three. A chariot normally would carry two men: the charioteer and the warrior. However, there was so much negative volition in Egypt that Pharaoh could not only gather up all of their warring chariots but he was able to man each of them with three men. The third man might have carried a shield or may have acted as a guide, lookout and possibly even as an officer. The word I have properly translated as third men is often rendered officer.

And Yahweh strengthened the heart of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he pursued the people of Israel as [lit., and] the people of Israel were going forth in defiance [lit., with an uplifted hand]. [Ex. 14:8]

This is the last time that we will see our Lord strengthen the heart of Pharaoh. This is the word châzaq (ק ַז ָח) [pronounced khaw-ZAK] and it is used several hundred times in the Bible and usually translated strengthen, fortify, repaired, but only in this portion of Exodus do we find it translated harden over and over again. What caused the translators to do that, I do not know, but what is occuring is that he is becoming weak-kneed. He knows what he has faced over the past two months and the strength of Yahweh. He can fall to the ground and worship Yahweh out of fear and respect, he can have a total mental breakdown, realizing that in facing the living God he may be marching to his own death, and he can proceed with the attack on the Jews—but that requires strength, and God is giving him this strength.

The Jews are moving forward, it says, with an uplifted hand. This is a way of saying that they were going forward boldly, defiantly. To understand that, recall the black power symbol of raising the clenched fist or the silly thing that some supporters of sports teams as they raise their hand with the outstretch index finger in the air, indicating that they are number one; or the driver that you just cut off in traffic and he raises his hand and middle finger with reference to you. This illustrates that the uplifted hand even up to today represents boldness and defiance.

And the Egyptians chased after them and overtook them encamped at the sea—all of the horses of the chariots of Pharaoh and his horsemen and his army—by Pi-hahiroth in front of Baal-zephon. [Ex. 14:9]

The Jews had roughly two million people, no chariots, and they were doubling back so it was easy for Pharaoh to prepare and to catch up to the Jews. This is what God had intended to occur. The Jews were at the edge of the sea, unable to cross over, camped out, not expecting the Egyptians. Pi-hahiroth means mouth of the canals; which means that freshwater canals were run to this area for farming and personal use, and this had resulted in reeds growing up beside and it the canals. Its proximity to the sea and the unusual fact that there were papyrus growing near the sea caused this portion of the sea to be called the Sea of Reeds (or, it is just as possible that here the Jews had crossed over from a freshwater tributary to the Red Sea). With what will occur, there is no doubt that the tidal wave produced by God spilled far out of the shores and ruined the canal system, if not the city. J. B. Scott makes the argument that by comparing Ex. 14:2, 3, & 9 to Num. 33:7 that the Jews were perhaps even encamped on a large peninsula. It may have looked as though they had found a place to cross over, but they were unable to. They likely had two large bodies of water on both sides of them and had march to a place where it appeared as though they might cross, but there was a raging river between the two salt lakes (this might have been above Lake Ballah or between Lake Ballah and Lake Timsah). And it is equally likely that the topology of the land in the area was totally changed by the tidal wave to come.

When Pharaoh drew near, the people of Israel looked up [lit., lifted up their eyes] and saw [lit, behold] the Egyptians were marching after them, then they were in great fear and they people of Israel cried out to Yahweh. [Ex. 14:10]

There first reaction was better than nothing. At least they realized, for a split second, that God had brought them to this place, and they cried God help, as people are wont to do when they are in a jam. This is even more acceptable here because God had led them to this place; most people who cry to God for help have caused their own misery and their own problems. Likely, the Pharaoh, having come upon them, was mustering his forces, arranging them to decide just how they would attack and slaughter the Jews. He was taking time to decide whether they should kill the men and let the children and women return with them into slavery; whether they should make an example of some of the men and save many; whether they should kill them all. Pharaoh knew the area and he knew the Jews were trapped. He did not have to do anything immediately and he knew his army was absolutely intimidating. This gave Pharaoh a feeling of power; a rush of strength and invigoration.

And they said to Moses, "Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the desert? What have you done to us [or, what now have you done to us] in bringing us out of Egypt?" [Ex. 14:11]

Several people are talking at once in this panic and they make these sarcastic remarks to Moses. These are the people who have witnessed all or most of the incredible 10 plagues placed upon the Egyptians and they should realize that God has a plan for their lives and that God is leading Moses. However, in the past few days, they have done some backtracking and some wandering and some of them have begun to question whether Moses has any idea as to what he is doing. The first remark may have been thought up while pondering the significance of carrying with them Joseph's bones—who refused to be buried in Egypt.

"Is this not the word we said to you in Egypt, saying, 'Leave us alone and allow us to serve the Egptians.' It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert." [Ex. 14:12]

Everyone gets a shot at making their own stupid remarks. This is not unlike a lame talk show and the moderator has gone out into the audience for comments from the unlearned. Their slavery had gotten so bad that they called out to God for deliverance (Ex. 2:23) and the situation continued to degenerate (Ex. 5:6–9). However, even with how difficult their slavery was, they had absolutely no appreciation whatsoever for freedom and they were not willing to make sacrifices which would provide freedom for themselves and the generations that followed them. Any sacrifice required of them caused the Jews to complain and moan and occasionally to foment revolution against the very God Who bought them.

Furthermore, we will see that this generation of Jews, although they were saved, were a group of degenerates who have seen miracle after miracle and yet they continue to question God and the man that God put in charge over them. People claim today that they would believe if God would only fill their lives with verifiable miracles. Miracles mean nothing. We have many instances of intense miraculous activity where the percentage of those saved is no different than it is today. Furthermore, miracles do not cause any kind of spiritual growth. This comes from the study of God's Word. A person exposed to no miracles and no overt signs of God's provision can grow to be a much greater believer than one who has witnessed a thousand miracles. This is why we do not see miracles in generation after generation.

And Moses said to the people, "Fear not! Stand firm [or, stablize yourselves] and observe the deliverance of Yahweh which He will work on your behalf [lit., for you] today. For whom you see today—the Egyptians—you will never see them again until forever." [Ex. 14:13]

Moses orders the people to not fear and the Hithpael imperative of yâtsab (ב ַצ ָי) [pronounced yaw-TSAB]; which was the verb used of Moses and Aaron when they would station themselves before the Pharaoh when he was to go out for his morning bath. The Hithpael is the reflexive of the Piel so it is the intensive reflexive. The Jews were running about expressing their fears, their disappointment with Moses and being out in the desert. Moses tells them to stop being afraid and to take a stand, to stand firm, to stabilize themselves.

Moses uses the verb râ’âh (ה ָא ָר) [pronounced raw-AWH] three times in this verse. The Qal imperative I translated observe (watch or see would have both been good translations). Then we have râ’âh in the Qal perfect—the Egyptians are encamped right in front of them and they have no where to go. They have seen the Egyptians and they know they are not going away. This views the action in a completed state. The Egyptians right in front of them is an established fact; it is a given. Finally, this verb is accompanied by the lâmed preposition (to, for, in regard to) and the verb is in the Qal infinitive construct; it acts as a verbal noun. This time, râ’âh is preceded by the negative and the 2nd masculine singular, Hiphil imperfect of the verb yâçaph (ף ַס ָי) [pronounced yaw-SAPH], which means to add, to augment, and often it is translated to continue to. This might be rendered with regards to them, you not continue to be seeing them again forever. Continue to and the negative means they will never see the Egyptians again.

Now Moses is revealing some spiritual growth here—a great deal of it in fact. He has not panicked. He is not running to God crying for help. He knows that God made provision for this time in eternity past. Moses does not even know how God will deliver them; he just knows that God will. God has promises to fulfill to the children of Israel and God fulfills all of his promises. Yâtsab (ב ַצ ָי) [pronounced yaw-TSAB] means to place. Here it is in the Hithpael imperative; the Hithpael is the reflexive of the Piel. The Jews are out of control, running around, crying to God, complaining to Moses; thinking of nw a cleaver things to say to express their fear. Moses tells them to stop squirming around like a bunch of babies and to stand fast; to take a stand; to hold their ground. Moses knows that there are not a lot of alternatives here. If Pharaoh has the gumption to put together a huge army to pursue the Jews and the Egyptians are in chariots while many of the Jews are on foot, it is pretty obvious that the Jews are not just going to walk away and the Egyptians will not just simply decide against attacking them. The two peoples are both at a point of no return and the only way God can fulfill His promises to the Jews is for Him to annihilate the Egyptians before their eyes.

These Jews are out of control with panic. They keep running up to Moses like he were a talk show host and they keep yelling out cleaver lines and slogans; and behind them, a hundred other voices are chiming in, yeah, tell it, right on, let Norm speak. Chârash (ש ַר ָח) [pronounced khaw-RASH] has two disjoint meanings. It means engrave, plough, fabricate and it means to be silent, speechless. It is likely two different words which are spelled the same but mean entirely different things (this is how BDB presents it).

The Yahweh said to Moses, "Why do you call to me? Tell the people of Israel to march forward." [Ex. 14:15]

Although it is not written, Moses turned to God. What Yahweh said is interesting. It is almost insulting. Moses has, without talking to God, told the Jews to stop talking and to watch God's deliverance. This is good. Moses does not have to consult God for this. It is a logical conclusion based upon God's promises. God wants Moses to take this further. The Jews have no weapons, so they cannot turn around a march on the Egyptians; they are trapped where they are, so the only thing they can do is to march forward toward Israel, even though this means that they would be marching right into the sea. This is somewhat tongue in cheek. What do you think you are going to do? You are marching to the promised land; get up and start marching! Furthermore, it is obvious in wich direction the children of Israel are to go—the pillar of the cloud is in that direction (cp Ex. 14:19) Moses has no idea whatsover as to what God plans to do.

"Now you lift up your rod and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it that the people of Israel may go through [lit., enter] the midst of the sea on dry ground." [Ex. 14:16]

Dry ground is one word which means exactly that. God give Moses the direction to send his people in and then provides the means for them to travel. What God is telling Moses to do is totally unprecedented. However, Moses has seen enough miracles and knows enough doctrine to trust God now.

I thought that this might be the same word for divide has we found in Gen. 1 where God separated the land from the sea, but this is a different word. We have here the 2nd masculine singular, Qal imperative, 3rd masculine singular suffix of bâqa‛ (ע ַק ָ) [pronounced baw-KAH] and it means break open, break through, rip open, divide.

"And observe: I will strengthen the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them and I will be glorified over Pharaoh and all his army, his chariot and his horsemen." [Ex. 14:17]

In this verse is the 1st person singular, Niphal imperfect of kâbêd (ד ֵב ָ) [pronounced kaw-BADE] and it can mean to be heavy, to be weighty and burdonsome; but it an also mean honor, glorify. I would not be surprised if this was originally two different words that context determined its meaning; however, BDB in this case lists it as one word but with both meanings. The Niphal is the passive of the Qal; however, its use can be more complex than that. The Niphal can also describe action which is in progress or development. This is likely an aspect of the usage here. God will receive glorification and this glorification is an ongoing thing. As groups of people hear more and more about Egypt and what occurred in Egypt, the more God is glorified over Pharaoh and his chariots and his armies and his horsemen.

In vv. 17 & 18, chariot is in the singular. It is speaking of his mobilized force (singular) as opposed to the individual chariots, as in Ex. 14:25–26.

"And the Egyptians will know that I [am] Yahweh, when I will have been glorified over Pharaoh, his chariot and his horsemen." [Ex. 14:18]

There are still Egyptians who are alive at this time who are watching from the city gates; those who chose not to accompany Pharaoh in this endeavor. There are still Egyptians scattered throughout Egypt watching and listening for news. So are families whose husbands have gone to war against the Jews. Others are men who refused to participate, but had not yet believed in Jesus Christ. This means that there is still some evangelization to take place. This episode will cause evangelization throughout the entire world.

Then the angel of God who went before the army of Israel moved and went in behind them and moved the pillar of cloud from before them and stood behind them coming betwen the army of Egypt and the army of Israel. [Ex. 14:19–20a]

Jesus Christ is the visible member of the trinity and He was guiding them as the pillar of cloud and as the pillar of fire. Moses once he organizes the Israelites, will lift up his hand and stretch it out over the sea and they will march toward the sea. The pillar of the cloud was in that direction, indicating that was the direction for them to move in. The army of Pharaoh and his army are standing there making a plan of attack. They are not in any sort of a hurry because the Jews are trapped between them and the sea. This allows Pharaoh's men all the time they need to think about this. God now places the pillar of the cloud between Pharaoh and Moses and

The next portion of v. 20 is difficult to translate. We begin with the 3rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] and in this construction could mean then it came to pass and it could be the verb for a more specific subject, which would take us back to v. 19; most of the action in v. 19 is being caused by Jesus Christ, the revealed member of the trinity or the subject could be the pillar of cloud. The action continues with the 3rd masculine singular, Hiphil imperfect of the verb ’ôwr (רא) [pronounced ore] and it means (in the causative stem) to illuminate, to cause to illuminate, to light. This would likely make Jesus Christ, the subject (although one could allow for the pillar of the cloud to be the subject as long as it was understood that Jesus Christ is the pillar of cloud).

Then He became the cloud and the darkness and then He caused to light the night; and one did not come near the other all night. [Ex. 14:20b]

God the Son is standing now as the rear guard for the children of Israel, who have never fought before. We have a huge group of Israelites that must be organized to cross over the sea. This requires time. God gives them time as the cloud stands between Pharaoh and Moses. At night, the cloud illuminates the sky, but the army of Pharaoh is unable to see the army of Israel. The one not coming near the other one refers to the camps of Israel and Egypt.

To Israel, the cloud was one of light. To Egypt, the cloud was one of darkness. This sets up two different ways that the same God is manifested to man. To the Israelites, light; to the Egyptians darkness. For those who believe in Jesus Christ, God is our salvation, our deliverance, our light. For those who do not believe, God is darkness, a judgment cloud hanging over them.

Then Moses stretch out his hand over the sea and Yahweh drove back the sea by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land and the waters were divided. [Ex. 14:21]

This gives some geographical clues as to where the Israelites were. The waters running into the Red Sea basically run South, South East. However, Moses and company are parked in front of a section which is moving due south. God brings a wind from the east to do two things: (1) to cut a path through the sea, and to hold back the waters from the north and from the south; and (2) very importantly to dry up the ground so that the Israelites can cross at this juncture. Had only the surface water been moved out of their way, crossing still would have been almost an impossible chore.

The picture is that Moses has organized the Israelites, God the Son is standing between the two armies as a pillar of cloud, keeping them invisible to one another (partially to calm the Israelites), and some time during the night, the light provided by the pillar, Moses stretches his rod over the sea and God brings in an east wind, separating the water to the north and south. This does not occur in a few minutes—this wind blows for several hours; perhaps for 8–12 hours. The water moves back almost immediately, but the ground must be dried for travel.

And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground and the waters to them a wall on their right hand and on their left. [Ex. 14:22]

It would be difficult to naturalize any of this. All these events are clearly miraculous and only a person with a very hardened heart could read this and not recognize that these are miracles provided by God. Now you could read this and think that it is all a myth or just a story; however, the author's clear intent is to present what was miraculous to relay to the reader the incredible power of our God.

However one valid problem to deal with is the number of Jews crossing the Sea of Reeds at this time. There are two million, and there is no way that two million Jews can cross over a small area such as the width of a street or two streets in a reasonable amount of time. If you have witnessed or seen pictures of the Boston Marathon, you get a better picture of what is occurring. Add to this personal belongings, many animals and multiply by ten, and you can see that two million people plus livestock will not travel a narrow stretch in the space of a few hours. However, there is nothing in the Bible which suggests that this is a narrow stretch of road that they are traveling upon, nor is there this dramatic wall of water with a narrow passageway as shown in Cecil B. Demille's Ten Commandments. We have the wall of waters and a very wide path before them. Recall that they were camped along the bank of the waters, not in some long line behind one another, and when they crossed, it would have been in the same width as their camp, which would have been several miles wide. Under those circumstances, which is clearly the case here, two million Jews plus livestock can travel across an distance of a mile or so in a few hours. Just as an army would move against an enemy, just as a large group would camp along side a rifer or a body of water, so would the encampment and subsequent movements of these people be. Furthermore, God knows how many men He has and how wide the opening needed to be to get these people across.

The Egyptians pursued and went in after them; all of the horses of Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen [went] into the midst of the sea. [Ex. 14:23]

God allowed the Jews to have enough of a head start by blocking their movement from Pharaoh by the pillar of the cloud. This cloud has been removed, Pharaoh's men have seen what was done, and they follow in right behind the Jews. The timing has to be perfect. The Jews must escape entirely from out of the sea and all of Pharaoh's men and chariots must be in the midst of the sea.

And it came to pass during the morning watch and Yahweh looked down upon the army of the Egyptians in the pillar of fire and cloud and confused the army of the Egyptians. [Ex. 14:24]

Prior to the Babylonian captivity, the Jews divided the night into three watches. This is apparently where they got the idea or where it originated from. The first watch was from sunset to 10 pm; the second from 10 to 2 am; and the third, called also the watch of the morning (we would of couse say, third watch) occured between 2 am and sunrise (see also I Sam. 11:11). This was the time of the third watch. The first was called the bveginning of the watches (Lam. 2:9) and the second was the middle watch (Judges 7:19).

It is difficult to tell whether it was Yahweh Who was in the pillar of fire and cloud or whether it was the army of the Egyptians who were in it. The army of Pharaoh was took large for all of them to normally cross the sea and all still be in the sea; therefore, God caused them to become disoriented. The pillar of cloud and fire confused them and blinded them, until the entire army found itself in the midst of the sea.

And He turned the wheels of the chariots so that they drove heavily and the Egyptians said, "Let us flee from before Israel because Yahweh fights for them against the Egyptians." [Ex. 14:25]

This word which I have translated heavily is found only here in the entire Bible, and it is translated variously as caused the chariot wheels to swerve, to make their chariot wheels glide out, or He clogged their chariot wheels so that they drove with difficulty. This is one of the words that we may never be able to settle upon a precise meaning; however, it is clear that God did something to the chariot wheels which slowed the Egyptians down so that they did not catch up to the Israelites and so that they all found themselves in the midst of the sea together.

After that, the verse literally reads, and Egypt said, "I must flee." Often a nation is personafied and all the pertaining verbs are in the singular. I have caught this in a few places and have made note of it; often I have bowed to tradition or I just didn't catch it (see the footnote on the next verse).

This was the only voice of reason, however, this person did not have enough positive volition to either complete his salvation, or, if he had, then he did not have enough positive volition to lead any sort of a Christian life. It is even possible that one or two believed right prior to their deaths; and for some, that is the only thing which brings them to God.

The Yahweh said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and upon their horsemen

." [Ex. 14:26]

God wanted Moses to be very demonstrative. This is because he had an audience of 2,000,000 so they had to see him doing something to effect the miracles which occurred. These were not magician acts and God was not grooming Moses to be some kind of an act; what Moses did had to be seen by millions to reinforce the little faith that they had. They had to see that all the miracles that were done were done specifically through the hand of Moses. God was working through him and all of Israel needed to see that.

So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea and when the morning appeared, the sea returned to its normal path and the Egyptians fled into it. So Yahweh shook the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. [Ex. 14:27]

The Egyptians had realized that the Jews were escaping through the Red Sea during the evening. When they got their bearings, they charged into the Sea after them. They had some light to work by; the light of the pillar of fire. Then, while it was still night, God caused them to become disoriented until the entire army found itself in the midst of the sea. Just as morning broke, so that the Jews could see, Moses raised his army over the seas. This was like a tidal wave; nothing like it has ever happened before. The water rushed in from the north and the south and met in the middle where the Egyptians stood. The water from both sides had tremendous power and throwing them together had a force almost unconceivable.

Shook is the Piel imperfect of nâ‛ar (ר ַע ָנ) [pronounced naw-AR] and it means to tumble about, to shake up, to shake off. The Piel is the intensive stem and this was a most instensive shaking. The Egyptians were killed almost instantly, every single one of them.

And the waters returned and coverd the chariots, and the horsemen to all of army of Pharaoh that had come after them into the sea. Not so much as one of them remained. [Ex. 14:28]

It is possible that some of the men did not follow Pharaoh into the sea; however, all those who did were obliterated. This must have been the most incredible thing that the exodus generation had ever witnessed; however, witnessing this one miracle would not carry them too far into the desert. When all is said and done, God will talk to Moses about killing off every last Jew. However, all of that will have meaning when we come to it.

It is here that we should examine the New Testament take on Moses taking the children of Israel across the Sea of Reeds. This incident is first of all used as an illustration for baptism in I Cor. 10:1–2: For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Note that the Israelites, the fathers of the Corinthians, were baptized into Moses. The Corinthians are principally Greeks—they are not Semitic—and the Israelites passed through the Sea of Reeds dry. It was the Egyptians who were immersed. Fathers refers to spiritual fathers; the sons of Israel had believed in Jesus Christ, prior to the Corinthians, and preserved God's Word, making them the spiritual fathers to the believers in Corinth. Baptism has this connotation: we are put into Christ when we believe in Him and thereby share His righteousness and perfection positionally; the Jews were identified with Moses—they were placed into Moses—and shared his relationship with God and his protection by God positionally. God protected Moses and He protected the Israelites because they had been baptized into Moses.

But the people of Israel had walked on dry ground through the sea; the waters [were] to them a wall on their right hand and on their left. [Ex. 14:29]

2,000,000 men witnessed this. When Moses recorded this information, certainly some of it was distributed throughout Israel and had these people not actually witnessed this, the idea of the Holy Scriptures would have been laughable to them because they would know what the truth was and what fabrication was. All of them experienced this, the young and the old; they all say the wall of water on both sides of them as they walked over the dry land.

Thus, Yahweh delivered Israel on that day from the hand of the Egyptians and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the shore of the sea. [Ex. 14:30]

At the beginning of v. 30, we have the Hiphil imperfect of the verb yêsha‛ (ע ַש ֵי) [pronounced YAY-shah] and it means deliver, save, rescue. Yahweh, as we have found is the Tetragrammaton YHWH (הוהי) which was never pronounced so we have lost the proper pronunciation. The proper name Joshua is the combination of these two words, an abbreviation of YHWH plus yêsha‛; so Joshua means YHWH saves. The Greek equivalent of Joshua is Jesus. "...And you will call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." (Matt. 1:21b).

There were hundreds of dead bodies floating in the ocean and they would have begun to wash up on shore like so much sea weed. This is the only way that the Jews would have been freed of Pharaoh's control.

And Israel saw the great power [lit., hand] that Yahweh brought [lit., did] against the Egyptians and the people feared [and respected] Yahweh and they believed in Yahweh and in Moses, His servant. [Ex. 14:31]

Notice that magic word: the people of Israel feared Yahweh and they believed in Yahweh. Just as we are exhorted to do as unbelievers throughout the New Testament. God put the Israelites into a hopeless situation where there was no human solution. Then Moses told them to "Stand still and watch the salvation of Yahweh." They were put into a position where no one could save them from the Egyptians. Only God could deliver them. In this observation of God's work, they believed in Yahweh and trusted in His power as their only solution, just as we trust in Jesus Christ as our only means of salvation. We are in a hopeless, helpless situation in our sins that no one can save us from but Jesus Christ. The Jews could do nothing but watch their salvation and we can do nothing but accept the salvation which God has provided for us.

As Zodhiates pointed out, the Jews will forever look back upon this day and God'

s deliverance (II Kings 17:7 II Chron. 6:4, 5). When the Jews fell into apostasy, Yahweh would call this day to mind and caused them to recall His so great salvation (Jer. 11:3 Hos. 12:13).

Throughout Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch, we will see Moses and the people on a honeymoon, then there will be pressures or disappointments, and the people will turn on Moses like a mad dog. Then things will go well and they will behave and it will be a honeymoon again. Then pressures and rebellion. Moses showed a great deal of stability throughout this ordeal; the people lacked God's Word in the souls and therefore they lacked the stability to grasp what was going on around them.

Introduction: Chapter 15 covers two events. The Israelites sing a song to Yahweh; its author is not named, however, it is very likely the work of Moses, who was a genius in several areas. Why wasn't it some aspiring young musician? Easy—the lyrics are recorded in God's Word and there is no reason to think that this represents anything other than divine viewpoint. Considering that at this time only Moses seemed to have a clue in the realm of things spiritual, he would have been the only person to write a song with this much content. Only his sister Miriam, with the gift of prophecy, was able to write a song herself, and we will note that it expresses divine viewpoint and is very short. The second event is the provision by God of fresh water in the midst of the desert for the Israelites.

There are times when believers in the Bible show initiative and it falls into God's plan. It is something that God id not have to specifically come down and say "Do A, B and C." They were guided by the doctrine in their soul. Two examples readily come to mind: this song of Moses and Solomon's Temple. Nowhere was Moses told he should stop and write a song of praise to God. It just proceeded from his soul as a honest emotional reaction to what God had done. Similarly, Solomon built a temple for God which we know was God's will because it is found in later prophecies. On the other hand, we have certain things done by certain believers which showed initiative, but poor judgement. When the Apostles were to wait for the Holy Spirit, they, knowing next to nothing, decided to elect another Apostle. Their reasoning was (1) there were twelve Apostles originally, (2) there were twelve tribes of Israel, and (3) they were bored and needed something religious to do. They even made it sound holy as we sometimes do. They gave God two choices and God chose neither one of them.

Then Moses and the sons of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and said, saying: [Ex. 15:1a]

Something which is missed here is what this song implies. Even though it is possible to write a song in a very short amount of time, it still requires concentration and song writers tend to write down the song that they are writing. What this means is that Moses was writing at this time. We don't know how much or how often, but if he wrote this song then he certainly had written portions of his life and portions of the exodus down so far. Or, at the very least, his writing at this point caused him to record Exodus and to compile Genesis.

There is something else I should point out. When a celebrity of some sort is saved, often they are paraded about by Christian groups and asked to give their testimony and tell everyone all that has happened to them and how they feel. Sometimes, a celebrity with talent is called upon to use his talent for God, and some of them write or perform “Christian” songs. Just about the worst thing that you can do with a new believer is to parade him or her about like some trophy and to let them tell everyone about how they feel. It is just as bad for such a celebrity to start writing Christian songs. All believers have a past; all believers can look back to their former life and, as a new Christian, they might take from that life. I recall when Arlo Guthrie was saved (yeah, you probably don’t know who he is) and we wrote some songs which sounded sort of Christian.

Now, the songs sounded nice; I still enjoy hearing them today; however, the lyrics are lame. He sings about making a heaven out of this earth. It’s not going to happen. We are not going to give in to hyper-environmentalism and suddenly end up living in the midst of a heavenly earth. Do I like fresh air and clean water? Sure, I do. But, Guthrie’s songs were devoid of any doctrine, which is what you would expect of a new believer.

Moses here did not commission some newly saved believer in Jehovah Elohim to write a song for everyone to perform. Most of the believers whom were led by Moses could not have punched their way out of a spiritual paper bag. Moses probably wrote this song because it is doctrinally correct and it has real spiritual meaning.

The likely scenario here is that the sons of Israel just stood and watched dumbfounded as the sea closed in from both directions upon Pharaoh and his army. Watching the power of a tidal wave (which is essentially what they were seeing) is an awesome event. Furthermore, they were completely safe (although they were so overwhelmed that they probably gave that very little thought). Moses probably watched for a moment and then wrote this song. Although the Egyptians rode into the midst of their own volition, it was as though God had picked up their entire army and had thrown them into the sea.

It is only fair to point out that this is one area where archeologists and the Bible do not fully agree. As of today, we do not know of any Egyptian monuments which feature the calvary. It is obvious that they were all wiped out during this period of time, however and it sounds as though Egypt was so devastated that it may have taken a century to begin to come back to the power that it once was. We have a later passage in II Chron. 12:3 where Shishak, king of Egypt has 1200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen. Unless there were 50 men on each chariot, that means that a large portion of these were calvary. This is 500 years later, however.

On the other hand, Freeman refers us to another book, Ancient Egyptians, written by Wilinson, Vol. I, pp. 288 & 292 where we have Egyptian Hieroglyphics which hold the command of the calvary to be an exalted position, often a post held by the king's sons; and there are ancient secular authors who mention Egyptian's calvary.

We all understand that God is the strength of Moses. Moses could do nothing without God; not one miracle could he perform; he could never have led the Jews out of Egypt. However, when it says Yah (an abbreviation for Yahweh) is his song, it means God is the reason for his song; song indicating inner happiness and joy.

I almost ignored a small note in The Emphasized Bible. Ex. 15:2b is translated in the KJV as I will prepare Him a habitation. In The Emphasized Bible it is rendered: I will glorify Him. NASB: I will praise Him. The Hebrew word is Hiphil imperfect of nâvâh (ה ָו ָנ) [pronounced naw-VAH]. This is found only in this passsage and in Hab. 2:5. In Habbakkuk, it is found with the negative and refers to a man who is not at home in his own house. Luckily, the adjective cognate is nâveh (or nâvâh in the feminine) and this is clearly connected to habitation or home or a dwelling; it possibly carries with it the connotation of being at home in one's habitation, which is much different than just having a place where you park your car and hang out. Moses wants God to be at home with him and with the people of Israel.

Moses recognizes that his strength is found in God; that even his song, which is representative of his rejoycing, is found in God. God is both our deliverer (that is, our help in times of need through the trials and troubles of our lives) and He is our salvation, our eternal hope. Moses identifies Yahweh as his God and the God of his father. In his song, Moses is lifting up God.

Here is an interesting thing for Moses to say. He calls Yahweh a man of war. Yahweh did the fighting for the Israelites, but Moses does not call him a God of war, but a man of war. Moses may or may not have realized it, but he was here predicting the hypostatic union—the first and second advents of our Lord. Throughout the Old Testament, every name given to Yahweh, the God of Israel, has its complement in Jesus Christ. The concept of Jesus Christ as a warrior is downplayed in our era of peace and love. It is even difficult to find in your Bible's concordance or subject index. People often have the foolish notion that the God of the Old Testament was a warlike, unforgiving, judgemental God, and the God of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is a kinder, gentler God, a God who walked around barefooted with long hair and exhorted everyone to hold hands, sing songs, and say nice things about each other. Let me quote a little from Revelation (first let me point out the the unlearned that the Lamb of Revelation is Jesus Christ—Rev. 5:8–9, 12–13). And the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the reich and the stonr gand every slave and free man hid themselves in caves and among the rocks of the mountains and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the prsence of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of their wrathe has come and who is able to stand?" (Rev. 6:15–17). "If any one worships the Beast and his image and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his ahdn, he will also drink of the wine of the wrather of God which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His aanger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." (Rev. 14:9b–10). And the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the vine of the earth and threw them into the geat wine press of the wsrath of God. And the wine press was trodden outside the city and the blood came out form the wine press, up to the horses' bridles for a distance of 200 miles. (Rev. 14:19–20) God judgement over the earth includes the death of one-third of all mankind (Rev. 9:15, 17–18). We have the seven bowls of wrath of God poured out onto the earth in Rev. 16. And one last quote about loving Jesus: And I saw haven opened and I saw a white horse, and He who sat upon it [is] called Faithful and True; and in righteousness, He judges and wages war. And His eyes [are] a flame of fire and upon His head [are] many crowns; and He has a royal title which no one understand except Himself. And [He is] clothed with a robe splattered with blood; and His name is called The Word of God; and the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white, clean, were following Him on white horses. And from HIs mouth come a sharp sword, so that with it He may smash the nations and He will fule them with a rod of iron and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. (Rev. 19:11–15). And we will save the rest for the time that we exegete Revelation. I hope you don't misunderstand me. I was brought up to be gentle and raised in a generation of peace-at-any-price people; but I have to believe what the Bible tells me about my God, the Lord Jesus Christ. For those that oppose Him, it does not result in a slap on the wrist or time out standing in the corner. His wrath will be poured down from heaven with devastation such as the world has never known before—and much of that is poured out upon those in high political positions and those who are religious. Being religious condemns us before God, it does not redeem us.

This tells us that the area where God caused the tidal wave to be brought down upon Pharaoh and company was known as the Sea of Reeds. This would mean that there was a freshwater tributary along which Moses and the children of Israel walked until they came to the actual sea. Because of the reeds growing out of the fresh water, this area became known as the sea of reeds. Since then, the topology has changed drastically—due in part, I would tink, to the tremendous crashing of the waves from the north and the south upon each other. Although it did not harm the Israelites on the East side, it very likely created havoc on the west side, possibly rerouted or destroying the canals or tributary which was there at one time.

These men were carrying armed weapons, shields, and they were wearing warriors clothing. When the water struck them, they were drowned almost instantly, but the force of the water brought them to the surface before they plummeted into the depths of the sea.

Here and in several other Scriptures, we find the right hand being associated with power and with victory in war. This is an anthropomorphism—God does not have a right hand, but it is as though He did and He smashed the enemy with it. The Qal imperfect of râ‛ats (צ ַע ָר) [pronounced raw-ATS] is found only here and in Judges 10:8. There are similar words used much more often, but here context will have to be our guide. In this verse, it is very possible to see this as a final encounter, however, in Judges, it reads: And they afflicted and crushed the sons of Israel that year; for eighteen years after they [afflicted] all the sons of Israel who were beyond the Jordan in Gilead in the land of the Amorites (Judges 10:8). Even though the NASB in Exodus translates this word as shatters and in Judges as afflicted; I will opt for a more genteel term neutralize. This way it easily fits into both verses and in no way takes from the power of God.

Something which should be examined at this time is the Doctrine of the Right Hand of God—not finished yet!!

Moses and his people have just seen the entire Egyptian army that opposed them swallowed up by a tidal wave—consumed, if you will. Stubble is a reference to that which is insignificant and unimportant. God's wrath is an anthropopathism—God is not mad or angry with anyone; however, He must take very extreme measures to reach some of us here on earth. In the case of the Egyptians, God spoke to the rest of the world, to the Jews, and to some Egyptians with His fierce anger poured out upon the Egyptians. We only understand some of this as it applies to us, or as we perceive the pain and discomfort and death suffered by some of the Egyptians. Therefore, this is revealed to us in the form of an anthropopathism—because from our vantage point it looks like wrath and fury.

When God's fury consumes them, this is an anthropomorphism—ascribing a physical human action to something which does not possess that in order to illustrate to us what has occurred. Notice that we find a great deal more figurative language here in a song than we find in the narrative portions of Scripture. Ex. 14 was mostly narrative and historical; Ex. 15 is a song about what had occurred. Note that we find much more figurative language in this chapter. Almost every other verse has an anthropopathism or an anthropomorphism in it. Where Bullinger's marvelous work Figures of Spech used in the Bible has two reference in the index to chapter 14, we find 14 verses indexed with 19 different citations in Ex. 15. It is simply a difference between song and narrative and it is not anything that should scare a Biblical literalist (which is what I am) nor does it give any fuel to add to the fire from one who desires to discredit the Bible.

A blast from the nostrils of God is a reference to wind and is obviously an anthropomorphism (god is a Spirit and does not have nostrils).

Congealed is the Qal perfect of qâphâ’ (א ָפ ָק) [pronounced kaw-FAW] and it means exactly that: congeal, thicken, condense. As though the waters had become solid and could remain separate as solid is how they behaved. Sights like these would last a lifetime—unfortunately, they will not cause spiritual growth.

We have a marvelous parallelism here, also called a mimesis (mim-mee-sis) by Bullinger. What Pharaoh intended to do to God, God purposed to do and did do to Pharaoh. It is difficult to translate this verse because it sounds as though it is only Pharaoh speaking. However, to be theatrical for a moment: if you could visualize the face of Pharaoh beginning to speak the words in v. 9, and then his face quickly metamorphosing into the face of our Lord Jesus Christ before the end of the verse, our Lord speaking the last few words, you have a feel for what is implied here.

The Hebrew word often translated destroy is the Hiphil imperfect of yârash (ש ַר ָי) [pronounced yaw-RASH] and it means take possession of, to dispossess, to inherit but it can also mean to impoverish, to bring to ruin (see BDB. p. 440). Even though God did destroy them, that was not the intention of this verse here.

Pharaoh's heart and the heart of his soldiers were strengthened by God the father. They were beaten men with no future in a land destroyed. God gave them the strength to go on, to oppose Him and to oppose the Jews. It was God Who gave them the strength to chase after the Jews. God did not put it in their heart to do this—that was strictly a matter of their own volition. God no more controlled their volition than He does when He allows a rabid atheist to draw breath.

The Jews heard the incredible wind that evening and awoke to find the waters pushed back by this force. Obviously the wind could not have held the waters in place as it would have blown the Jews into the water. God held the waters back; His wind pushed the waters there to begin with and dried out an area for them to walk across.

If you read vv. 9 and 10 together, you will see that all of Ex. 14 is completely summed up by these two verses. It is a quick run through of the intentions of Pharaoh and the might of God in quashing Pharaoh and his intentions.

[Continually] majestic in holiness, [continually] feared and revered in glorious deeds,

Owen's translation reads terrible in glorious deeds.; the KJV reads fearful [in] praises. The Niphal participle of yârê’ (א ֵר ָי) [pronounced yaw-RAY] means to fear, to revere, to respect. The Niphal can be the passive, but it also refers to a constant or a continuous state of action. T^ehillâh (ה ָ ̣ה ׃) [pronounced teh-hil-LAW] means praise, song of praise, deeds that inspire praise, public praise. Given the context, we would have to go with the deeds which inspire praise.

Note that throughout this song there are a great many anthropopathisms, most of which involve our Lord's right hand, which is, as we have seen before, His right hand of power. Moses wrote this song of praise, so this is not a reference to the stretching out of his hand. That was merely to illustrate visually that something tremendous was about to occur. Moses stretched out his hand as a representative of God stretching out His.

You have guided [them] by Your strength to the abode of [what is] holy. [Ex. 15:13]

Moses recognizes that the children of Israel were purchased by God. He does not know precisely what the coin of the realm is, as of yet (it is Christ's blood). The holy abode is the land that God has set aside for the Jews. Moses doesn't realize that another 40 years lie ahead of him with these people and he will never enter into the promised land himself.

The subject of the second portion of this verse is chîyl (לי ̣ח) [pronounced kheel] and it means writhing, anguish. The verb is the 3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect of ’âchaz (ז ַח ָא) [pronounced aw-KHAZ] and it means to grasp, to take hold, to seize, to take possession. Those who occupy the promised land have heard in detail about the power and the ferocity of Yahweh, the king of the Jews. God has promised their land to the Jews and those who know have become reasonably concerned as to their future well-being.

Those in surrounding territories listened for news from out of Egypt as to what was occurring between the Egyptians and the Jews. Once the Israelites left Egypt and began moving their way, the wiser people began to worry. If they were in the path of the sons of Israel and God desired for them to have that land, they would possess it. We see that this is fulfilled in Josh. 2 where Joshua has sent spies into the land and they have come upon Rahab the prostitute and Rahab says, "I know that Yahweh has given you the land, and that th terror of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you. For we have heard how Yahweh dried up the water of the Sea of Reeds before you when you came out of Egypt and...when we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for Yahweh, your God—He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath." (Josh. 2:8b–10a, 11). This passage tells us that not only were the words of this song fulfilled, but that many people became believers in Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, as had Rahab.

neighbouring peoples are intent upon not causing any ill feelings between themselves and the Israelites. Some plan, when the Israelites march through, to be non-confrontational, to fade into the background, just as quiet as we might be if a wild beast wandered by and the possibility existed that if we didn't move that they might not see us.

The land is the inheritance of the Jews. It has been given to them unconditionally since the times of Abraham a half century previous. It is also where Yahweh will dwell, with his people. Yahweh dwelling in the land with his people is a foreshadowing of our Lord coming to this earth and living among the Jews, His own people.

God true eternal presence and power are recognized by Moses. In eighteen verses, Moses has shared with us his observations and the doctrine in his soul in a song. For him, because he has learned a great deal of God's Word over the past several years, the words flow out easily.

For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, Yahweh brought back the waters of the sea upon them; however, the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea. [Ex. 15:19]

Below the song, as an addendum, Moses penned these additional words to let us know the occasion of this song, although it is fairly obvious. It is likely that he wrote the words down and then they were copied by several scribes and passed throughout the army of the Jews. This is to remind the Jews unequivocally that God was fighting for them. They experienced first-hand God's provisions.

Now the person with the next highest amount of doctrine in her soul was Miriam—who not only learned by watching Moses and Aaron, but was a prophetess to boot.

The 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 dancing. [Ex. 15:20]

Up until this time, the word prophet (or, prophetess) has been rarely used. We have seen it once way back in Gen. 20:7 where Abraham is called a prophet. Later, Aaron is spoke of as Moses' (not God's) prophet in Ex. 7:1 (i.e., Aaron spoke on behalf of Moses). The verb for prophecy has not been used yet (and it will not occur in Scripture until Numbers). A small amount of information is known about prophets and prophecy, but very little had been recorded up until that time.

Miriam, no longer a slave and thrilled to be in a royal family, if you will, leads the women in song and puts together a response of the women, singing back to the men. She still sings Moses song; she is just counter harmonizing with the men.

According to Freeman, originally, dancing occurred at religious ceremonies only (this is true of the Egyptians as well as the Hebrews). He claims that women primarily danced alone and the few times when the men danced, that it was separate from the women. In the dancing mentioned in this verse, the first person began, not confined by any sort of form, and the others followed in her steps. We have a similar passages in Judges 11:34 21:19–21 I Sam. 18:6. When David danced before the Lord (II Sam. 6:14), it is possible that his wife was upset due to the fact that he was wearing very little (II Sam. 6:20) but also because dancing was an activity generally reserved for women. Whether this is true or no, there are times in the Bible when we are exhorted to dance (e.g., Psalm 149:3).

And Miriam sang [back] to the men [lit, them

], "Sing to Yahweh for He has triumphed gloriously—the horse and his rider He has thrown into the sea." [Ex. 15:21]

Obviously, this is not Miraim's original song, but a choral response of the women to the men, still using the words of Moses' song, making very minor adjustments for the change of singers and to indicate that this is a response to the song of Moses.

The Moses led Israel from the Sea of reeds. They went into the desert of Shur. In fact, they went three days in the desert and found no water. [Ex. 15:22]

This is the verse which tells us that the Sea of reeds is synonymous with or very close to the sea which God parted for Israel. My strongest leaning is toward a canal or a freshwater tributary which was near the Sea.

This is still analogous to the Christian life. The Jews have been redeemed and they have been delivered, just as we are in salvation. However, what they require and they will die of thirst until they find some, is water. Likewise, we require the water of the word to begin immediately following salvation or we find ourselves in a spiritual desert, foreboding and unforgiving. Our desert is the life on earth filled with human viewpoint.

When they came to Marah, they could not drink the water of Marah because they [the waters] were bitter; therefore, it was called Marah. [Ex. 15:23]

The proper nouns from the Hebrew are transliterated from the original language (although often poorly as we have seen with the names of various tribes). Marah, in the Hebrew, is Mârâh (ה ָר ָמ) [pronounced maw-RAW] and bitter is the word mâr (ר ָמ) [pronounced mar] or mârâh and the Hebrew word for bitterness (found only in Prov. 14:10) is morrâh (ה ָּר ָמ) [pronounced mor-RAW]. As you can see, this is all accurately transliterated, which is nice for a change. The latter word I mention because it is the first resh dagesh which I have seen (which doesn't seem to be rare but it was not even on the WordPerfect keyboard). We do not know the composition of this water, whether it was filled with rust, oil, sea salt; it was clearly undrinkable.

It is important to note how this is stated. This is written in retrospect, whether it be a week later or 40 years later. When they arrived to Marah, it possibly did not have this name yet or it had this name but in a different language. There was not a population in that area nor did someone erect a sign saying this was Marah. They Jews arrived, tried the water, spit it out, and then named it Marah. We will occasionally come upon other areas and places which were named after the arrival, but prior to the time that the arrival was recorded; but it sounds as though it already had that name. This hsould not worry us; it is just the way things were expressed then in that language. In English, we would have said that we came to a clearing where there was a well (or a pond) and that the water was bitter. Therefore, we decided to name this place Marah. It is our habit to write things in a strictly chronological order. I have a Bible edited in such a way that it is in chronological order because that is the way I think and perceive. This is not how we should interpret the ancient Hebrew mind, however. A simple corroborating factor: our verb tense system is based upon time: past, present and future. The Hebrew verb structure (as well as the Greek) is not based upon time; an imperfect or a perfect tense could refer to a past, a present or a future event. Context determines that.

Obviously, this is not the direct route to the land of Canaan. We saw in Genesis various portions of Joseph's family go back and forth from Egypt to Canaan in a relatively short amount of time. God is dealing with a people who, although they are all believers, are probably one of the worst collection of believers anywhere at any time. Their instability, their lack of trust in God, their constant whining will become a source of irritation. They have seen God do the most for them (just as when we are saved, God does the most for us). When they are to go into the land to take it, what should they expect? They should expect that God will do much more than the most for them (just as after salvation, we should expect the same). All they have to do is to trust God and listen and obey. It can't be much simpler than that. God knows their every need and He has taken care of it in eternity past. Had these men been able to do that, they would have marched directly into the land of Canaan and taken it. As it is, they will wander the desert for 40 years, making one mistake after another. Only God, in His infinite wisdom and patience allowed them to live out their natural lives without killing them (Num. 14 notwithstanding; we will cover that later).

So the people murmured against Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?" [Ex. 15:24]

In the English, murmured is onomatopoetic [pronounced ON-ə-MAT-ə-pō-ET-ic] where a word immitates the sound of what it represents. In the Hebrew, it is the Qal imperfect of lûwn (ןל) [pronounced loon] and it means murmur, complain, bitch, to speak in an obstinate manner.

It wasn't but three days ago that they saw a miracle beyond what we can comprehend. This is documented proof that miracles do not carry you very far. For a few hours after the Egyptians were drowned, they were exhilarated. Possibly even into the night, many of them still talked about it in an animated, enthusiastic way. It may have been mentioned the next day. On day two, they were hot and thirsty and by day three, they were upset. This is going to be a pattern that we will observe. God has performed an incredible number of miracles through the agency of Moses before these people. Immediately following the miracle, they are charged, enthusiastic, excited, thankful to God. After a few hours or a few days, it was as though it never occurred. Then they will face a crisis. From our vantage point, we think this is simple: you go to Moses and ask for him to perform a miracle. God is fully capable of this. What is their problem? Their problem is that they had no doctrine. All the miracles in the world won't carry you but a few feet without doctrine. We saw the same thing with the Apostles. After three years with our Lord, seeing miracle after miracle—perhaps as many as hundreds in a day—still, when it came to the cross, they scattered, even though He clearly predicted the cross and its importance.

Haven't you ever had a problem that you were anxious over; upset about? Then God solved the problem apart from your own effort. However, when the same problem reoccurred, what happened? You became anxious and upset again. Thieme dubbed this the charge of the mosquito. We periodically face problems and pressures which God solves and we recognize that He solves them. When the exact same problem re-occurs, we should be able to withstand the pressure or the mental stress. This prepares us for the major crises that we face in our lives. God is glorified when we can depend upon Him to solve the problems in our lives. I should point out in this context, I am referring to problems which we have not foisted upon ourselves (e.g., overspending due to greed; illicit sex, verbal sins, drug usage, etc.) or other problems which may have resulted from the function of our old sin nature.

And he called to Yahweh and Yahweh showed him a tree and he caused [it] to be thrown into the water and the water became sweet there. [Ex. 15:25a]

You may wonder what God is doing here? God is taking what He has given them and He is showing them that He has made provision for them in eternity past. Perhaps the water there was totally undrinkable; in eternity past, God provided that tree to chemically counterbalance whatever was in the water in the first place to make it so bitter. The Hebrew word is the Qal imperfect of mâthaq (קֹת ָמ) [pronounced maw-THAK] and it means to become sweet, pleasant. The Arabic equivalent means to smack the lips. It is not even necessarily a miracle here. God provided exactly what it would take to cause a chemical reaction to precipitate out whatever there was in the water to make it undrinkable. In reading through my resources, I see that I agree here with Manfred Barthel, who does his best to demythologize the Bible in his book What the Bible Really Says. This has been the attempt of many hard-working, misguided men particularly of the past century and a half. It boils down simply to this: I have not observed anything which is miraculous in my lifetime, other than that performed by scientists, therefore, nothing miraculous ever has occurred that cannot be explained somehow by science either now or in the future. These people view the Bible as a product of primitive people who when observing natural phenomenah which went beyond their personal comprehension (which is how I feel before a computer or even a stereo), that they tended to identify it as a miracle of sorts. His intention (as is the intention of many of his ilk) is to preserve the core and the basic goodness of the teachings of the Bible, while carefully eliminating the things which he views as miraculous, primitive, anti-scientific, or culturally biased. On the back cover, it reads, Here is a scholarly but lively attempt to prevent the Bible from degenerating into, in the author's words, "neglected quarry that is only plundered for the odd quotation." However, Barthel will find his work, as I will find my own, long gone, whereas the Word of God lives and abides forever. No matter what the attacks are (and his is an attack, although I know he would deny that vehemently) and no matter how subtle or how vicious they might be, God's Word will remain and some new author will crop up and try the same thing, while their works are long forgotten. My only attempt is to clarify and to teach what is in the Bible and pass to the souls of another generation the baton of life.

Life is filled with unpleasant experiences and difficulties. In the Christian experience, these are not removed (although we receive some protection from some great tragedies and personal suffering that we will not even know about until we are face to face with God). God brought the Jews to this place to teach them something. They were hard-headed and it took illustration after illustration for them to get it. Actually, the older generation never did catch on and they will die in the desert. However, the younger generation will catch on and they will take the promised land. Scofield points out that since they are in God's will, that this bitter water was not a punative measure for what they had done in the past but it was a teaching aide. Some people learn by the mistakes of others; some learn directly from God's Word being taught to them; and some only learn when they suffer hardship and pain. Our life is very similar. We will all face personal tragedy, pain and heartaches. We learn through these things to trust God; we also learn to accept death because at the point of death there will be no more sorrow, no more tears, the old things have passed away and observe that all things have become new (Rev. 21:4).

There He made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he had tested them... [Ex. 15:25b]

In a way, the Jews up until that time were lawless. God had not given them the Law; they had a conscience and had some idea what was right and wrong, but that changes from society to society; from time to time. I recall in the 50's and 60's, being a homosexual in the United States was almost unanimously thought of as wrong; however, in the 90's a large number of people saw it as an acceptable lifestyle. In the 50's, it was generally agreed that sex outside of marriage was wrong, whereas the 60's and the 70's ushered in the idea of sex outside of marriage as not only being acceptable, but advisable by some in order to screen one's life partner. So it takes only a few years to turn the morals of a country around. The Jews had some idea of what was right and wrong, but this was still relatively subjective. God would reveal to them what was right and wrong. Here God will present them with a simple law: listen to Me and obey Me.

Tested is the 3rd person singular, 3rd person plural suffix, Piel perfect of nâçâh (ה ָס ָנ) [pronounced naw-SAW] and it means test, try, prove. With the exception of Psalm 4:6, this is found only in the Piel (intensive) stem. The Piel can also refer to an accomplished fact or a completed state of being. The 3rd person singular gives us the subject (God) and the 3rd person plural suffix gives us the direct object of the verb: the Jews.

...saying, "If you will diligently listen to the voice of Yahweh your God and that which is right in His eyes; do and give heed to His commandments and keep all his statues, [then] all of the diseases which I place upon the Egyptians I will not place upon you, for I am Yahweh, your Healer. [Ex. 15:26]

Here is one of the many places where these verses were split entirely wrong. How anyone could mess up this badly is hard to imagine; but perhaps it was an off-night and they were exhausted. V. 25b should be a separate verse entirely or attached to v. 26.

We do not know whether this is God speaking to Moses or Moses speaking to the people, but certainly both conversations occurred and this is the gist of each conversation. Rather than repeat it twice, we hear it only once here. God begins with a simple commandment—Listen and obey Me. The number of statues which God has given them is relatively small. They will perform some animal sacrifices and God has given them the Passover Feast and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. God's promise to them is to not afflict them as He did the Egyptians. Your Healer is not a new word, but it is a new designation for Yahweh, Jesus Christ, their God. When He came to us in His incarnation, this is the aspect of His ministry that even the heathen seem to remember well—Jesus Christ was a healer. Râphâ’ (א ָ ָר) [pronounced raw-FAW] and it means heal, mend, cure. It is found here as a Qal active participle, meaning it acts as a verbal noun. Therefore, it would be acceptable to translate this healer, physician, doctor. The action performed by the noun identifies the noun. The 2nd masculine singular suffix is translated your. This word has only been found twice in the past: Gen. 20:17 50:2. Our Lord will be referred to as a physician once more in Psalm 147:3 and then all four gospels present Jesus Christ as the Great Physician time and time again.

Then they came to Elim where there [were] twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees; and they camped there by the water. [Ex. 15:27]

This is a rarity out on the desert to find twelve springs of water and this many palm trees. Each tribe was given a spring here, as there were twelve tribes of Israel. The 70 palm trees represented the 70 who moved to Egypt, forming the seed for these tribes 400 years previously. They are allowed to rest here, to reflect upon what has occurred to them, to think things through. Unfortunately, what has occurred does not seem to sink in. God has provided in eternity past for their every need. He is their Great Physician. They needed only to listen and obey.

They set out from Elim and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt. [Ex. 16:1]

They are heading south, south-east, exactly the wrong direction. This does move them away from Egypt, but simultaneously, they are moving away from the land of Canaan. Moses, since he lived out in the desert for 40 years, probably knows how to get to the land of Canaan, but he quickly got to a point where he trust Yahweh and the direction in which they went. In the ack of almost any Bible you will find a map to correspond with this bit of movement and this is fairly well agreed upon. The Red Sea is kept on their right hand side as the traveled and the timing tells us that they have just begun their desert wanderings.

The entire congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the desert. [Ex. 16:2]

This is a place where entire (or all) does not mean every last soul. As we will see, there are at least two of the sons of Israel who are head and shoulders above all the others: Caleb and Joshua. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Miriam spoke against either one of them. However, out of this many, to have only a handful of exceptions, it is like the entire congregation is saying vicious things behind the backs of Moses and Aaron. The Qal imperfect of murmur indicates that this action was continuous. A few began to get hungry, realized that there was no food in sight (certainly not enough to feed this many people) and they began to point this out to the others, who then passed on their ill feelings. These are the same people who have just witnessed miracle after miracle where God preserved them. They have promises which God has delivered to them. Either He will eep His promises or Yahweh is not God—it is that simple. The Bible is filled with promises to us and either He will keep His promises or He is not God.

And the people of Israel said to them, "It would have been preferable to die by the hand of Yahweh in the land of Egypt when we sat by the pots of flesh and ate bread until we were full [lit., to the full]. For you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill all of this assembly with hunger." [Ex. 16:3]

In this chapter we have two words for food: (1) Bâsâr (ר ָ ָ) [pronounced baw-SAWR] means flesh and it can refer to human flesh (Num. 8:7) or to animal flesh (Ex. 21:28 Isa. 31:3). (2) Lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEHK-em] means bread, but it also is a generic word for food, including grains and vegetables, since bread was a mainstain of their diet. Throughout this chapter they refer to meat and food.

A flesh-pot was a three-legged bronze pot used by the Egyptians for cooking meat. According to Freeman, he said that they ate a lot of beef, goose and fish, but the cow was sacred and not eaten (so I guess beef refers to the meat of steers?). Egyptologists split on whether or not they ate sheep. Num. 11:5 tells us that Egypt had a variety of vegetables.

What God wanteed to hear was, "We are hungry, we cannot figure out from where in the desert we will get enough food to sustain us for even another month; how will You provide us food?" This would have been a marvelous show of faith. God doesn't mind that, in the course of our daily lives where we have not personally ruined our own lives, to come to Him and call Him on His promises. The Bible is filled with promises to us; promises that God must keep or God is not God. In Egypt, the Jews had cried out to God for deliverance and now, years after they began to call upon Him, they are saying they would rather die, their appetites satiated under slavery, than face possible death by starvation in the desert.

Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Watch, I will rain bread for you from heaven and the people will go out and gather a day's portion every day that I may test them whether they will walk in My law or not." [Ex. 16:4]

Bread is the substantive lechem (ם ∵ח ∵ל) [pronounced LEHK-em] means bread, but it is also the all purpose term for food in general for the Jews. What this means is that we cannot assume from this verse that the manna that God will rain from heaven is necessarily a grainular product.

These people have exceptionally fragile short-term memories. Since they seem to have no interest in God's plan or His law, God will teach them by every single day providing them with a miracle. Every day from heaven, food will rain down upon them. Every single day, what they will eat will be provided to them by a miracle. Furthermore, it will be a miracle food. Completely nutritious, filled with all of the vitamins, minerals, enzimes (?), fiber and all the other nutrients that our bodies require and it can be fixed in a large variety of ways, as we will see. The intention here is for the Jews to see something miraculous eavery day, day after day, for 40 years. This will clearly show us that miracles, even on a daily basis, will not carry us. At age 29 or 30 I saw a natural phenomenah which was miraculous—something that not one out of a million people have every seen. Did it do anything for my spiritual life? Not a single thing. It didn't make me better, it didn't make me worse; it didn't increase or decrease my interest in God's Word. My interest in God's Word came from continual study of God's Word coupled with obedience in areas of my life which caused scar tissue of the soul. This is not to say that I have led the life of a saint—far from it! But I learned from God's Word that I needed to trust Him in certain areas, and, after years of mistakes in some areas, I thought, "What the hell; why not trust Him?"

"And it will come to pass on the sixth day when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily." [Ex. 16:5]

Because of creation and because everything that we need has been provided for us, God expected the Jews to rest on the seventh day. It was to convey to them that there is nothing more that they can do. God's provision is completely sufficient.

There is an interesting linguistic evolution which occurs in the Hebrew. Twice as much at the inception of its usage in the Bible, began here (and throughout the Law) as meaning exactly that. However, in Job 11:6, 41:13 Isa. 40:2 61:7 and in other passages as being denoitng that which is complete, or ample—it will come to refer to a full cpmpensation, whether in relation to a blessing or cursing

And Moses and Aaron said to al the people of Israel, "At evening, you will know that it was Yahweh Who brought you out of the land of Egypt." [Ex. 16:6]

God will provide for the Jews food every evening and every morning. To Moses and Aaron, this would be reasonable to expect that their fellow Jews would catch on after seeing this time and time again.

"And in the morning, you will see the glory of Yahweh because He has heard your murmuring against Yahweh; and what [are] we that you murmur against us?" [Ex. 16:7]

The word for glory here is kâbôwd (דב ָ) [pronounced kaw-BODE] and it means glory, honor, majesty, dignity, abundance. This is everything that God is and everything that we are not. In fact, this would be an excellent place to examine the Doctrine of the Glory of God—not finished yet!!

Two thoughts are begun here which will be carried on into the rest of the passage. God has heard the complaining of the Israelites and this complaining is directed against God. You may be thinking that in v. 2 it said that the Israelites complained about Moses and Aaron, but the second thought presented here is Moses and Aaron are nothing—they are only following God's orders. Whining and complaining about them, murmuring about them is useless. This is God's plan and their problem is with God's plan; not with Moses and Aaron. Therefore, with all of their bitching and moaning about Moses has nothing to do with Moses but with God.

Then Moses said, "In [the] placing [by] Yahweh for you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to completely satiate your appetites [lit., to the full]—because Yahweh has heard your mumurings which you murmur against Him—so then what [are] we [lit., and we what]? Your murmurings [are] not against us but against Yahweh." [Ex. 16:8]

The beginning of Moses' statement in v. 8 is difficult to grasp. The NASB inserts: "[This will happen] when the Lord gives you meat to eat in the evening..." The Emphasized Bible takes quite a different tact. It reads: "In that Yahweh giveth you in the evening flesh to eat..." What Moses said begins with the bêyth preposition (׃), one of the many things totally left out of Zodhiates marvelous work, neglected in Strong's, and not keyed in Owen's. Its basic meaning is in, into. Here it is with a verb, the Qal infinitive construct of nâthan (ן ַת ָנ) [pronounced naw-THAN], the simple word for giving or placing. Here, we have problems with the language because of the time element. We desperately want to hear Moses tell the people that God will provide food for them at some near future time. That is how we think. God told Moses that He would provide food for the Jews and we expect Moses to go back to the Jews and tell them that there will be food that very evening or tomorrow morning. However, this is not how it is written. And the verb, although it has a subject (Yahweh) and an object (you; the Israelites), it should be translated like a noun because the infinitive construct is a verbal noun. Therefore, Moses said, "In [the] giving (or, placing) [by] Yahweh for you flesh in the evening and bread in the morning...." This entire statement is tied to why are you murmuring against us? Moses is incidentally mentioning, "Oh, by the way, there will be food provided by God for you, so why bitch to us?" This is slipped in here so casually, as, "Of course you will have food; you're hungry aren't you? God is still God isn't He? He will provide." The food is presented here as a given. Moses and Aaron speak to the Jews not about their lack of faith, not directly about the coming food, but about their misplaced anger and complaining. Moses and Aaron can neither provide them with food or do anything to cause them to starve or to be fed. Moses and Aaron are non-issues. They are merely leading. The issue is that the Israelites are complaining about Moses and Aaron and they are not to be complained about. Their complaints are with Yahweh—and even that is foolish, since Yahweh has provided meat in the evening and bread in the morning. So the Israelites are listening to this, and they catch this phrase about meat in the evening and bread in the morning, and wonder what the heck is Moses and Aaron talking about? What is this meat in the evening and bread in the morning?

And Moses said to Aaron, "Say to the entire congregation of Israel, 'Come near before Yahweh, for He has heard your murmurings.'" [Ex. 16:9]

Moses has finally gotten it straight in his mind as to what Aaron is to do. Aaron is his errand boy; his gopher. This is not to denigrate Aaron's position, but Moses is the spokesman for God and Aaron is clearly under Moses. Since Moses cannot do everything himself, he must delegate out the responsibilities. This is not because Moses is a poor public speaker or is afraid to speak to the crowd, as before; but because he simply does not have enough hours in a day to do everything, so Aaron takes up the slack for him. The people are to present themselves before Yahweh.

And as Aaron spoke to the entire congregation of the people of Israel, they looked [lit., turned] toward the desert and saw the glory of Yahweh had appeared in the cloud. [Ex. 16:10]

We are never given the specifics as to how communication was carried out. Aaron did not stand in front of 2,000,000 people and speak. The Israelites had to be extremely organized about this and it was likely a tedious process. Aaron may have spoken to several hundred or several thousand men and they in turn spoke to the people under them. It had to be a highly organized system that they took for granted. It is not unlike one of us sitting down and describing our lives; this story given to another culture at another time would be fascinated by hundreds of things that we take for granted but never think to mention.

We do not know exactly what they saw visually in the cloud. Furthermore, this apparition had to be more than just visual. That is, just because some visual phenomenon occurs, that does not mean that it has anything to do with God. There was an accompanying conviction in their souls that this was God and that they were standing before Him.

And Yahweh commanded Moses, saying, "I have heard the murmurings of the people of Israel. Speak to them, saying, 'At twilight [lit., between the evenings], you will eat meat and in the morning, you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I [am] Yahweh, your God.'" [Ex. 16:11–12]

Commanded is simply the word for said, but it is in the Piel (intensive) stem. Therefore, I have taken some liberties with the translation. Back in Ex. 12:6, we saw the between the two evenings is at dusk, immediately after the sunset.

We do not have an exact chronological time frame for this. We do not know if God spoke but once to Moses, then Moses spoke to Aaron, then they both spoke to the people. This is just not organized in the way that we are accustomed to thinking and it throws a person. This is the Bible and all of these conversations took place. In what order and how many conversations were invovled is not told to us. Here, God tells Moses to make it clear to the people that they would have meat and bread.

And it came to pass in the evening then came up quails and covered the camp, and in the morning was a layer of dew round about the camp. [Ex. 16:13]

Just as Moses presented the provision of meat in the evening as an incidental; it is mentioned here the same way. Nothing is said about the Israelites beholding the birds, chasing after them, cooking them, etc. It simply states that there were a lot of quails and the sentence moves on to the next morning. According to Barthel

, quail were common in Egypt and this would have been during their migratory flight north. Due to the long flight, they were exhausted and easy to catch. However, keep in mind that we are feeding 2,000,000 and that would be an awful lot of quail. Today in April it is a closed season on quail in Egypt.

I personally know very little about the desert, but it is my guess that having enough dew to mention does not occur all that often. This dew likely peaked the attention of the Israelites, who had just had a dinner of marvelous quail.

And when the dew had evaporated [lit., gone up], they saw [lit., behold, there (was)] a fine, flake-like substance on the face of the desert, fine as the hoar-frost on the ground. [Ex. 16:14]

Although the Bible is not a science book, it often deals with scientific phenomenon in layman's terms. Most people would decide the dew, for the most part, would be absorbed by the ground. However, in that dry weather, it evaporated. The word used here is the Qal imperfect of ׳âlâh (ה ָל ָע) [pronounced ģaw-LAW] and it means to ascend, to go up, to climb. A better word could not be found to describe evaporation. I do not fully comprehend hoar-frost, but in the Hebrew it is kephôwr (רפ ∵) [pronounced kef-ORE] and it is found but three places in the Old Testament, and this is one of them (also in Job 38:29 Psalm 147:16). A hoar-frost is a gray or white frost that has been there for awhile.

We do not know exactly what manna is and some have made educated guesses as to its composition. One is that when any of seven different plants, all native to Egypt, have their bark punctured by insects, that they will exude small, thick, sweet droplets. Scientists have also identified manna as a thick secretion of the Tamarisk tree. This identifications are all well and good, but keep in mind that we are feeding 2,000,000 people a day for forty years, so we are talking miraculous portions of manna beyond human comprehension.

When the people of Israel saw [it], they said to each other [lit, each one to his brother], "What [is] it?" For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, "It [is] the bread which Yahweh has given to you to eat." [Ex. 16:15]

We all know that this is manna from heaven. What is it is actually just two word in the Hebrew: mân (ן ָמ ) [pronounced mawn] and it is found but one time in the Scripture, here, and most authorities believe that it means what. Since these were slaves of the Egyptians for four centuries, it might even be an Egyptian word. We have the exact same spelling (and pronunciation) of a Chaldean word which is translated who or what in Ezra 5:3, 4, 9 Dan. 3:6, 11, 15 4:17, 25, 32 5:21. This is followed by the 3rd masculine singular, personal pronoun hûw (אה) [pronounced hoo]. As you have noticed, there are a number of phrases in the Hebrew which we supply some form of the absolute status quo verb to be, but this verb is not carried, only implied, in the Hebrew. You have no doubt noticed that this is the 3rd masculine, yet I've translated it it. This is because there is no neuter form of this verb—the feminine and the masculine are used for the neuter. So the Jews are running around seeing this stuff and they are saying continually to one another, "What it? What it?" We know that it is manna, which is the Hebrew word mân (ן ָמ ) [pronounced mawn]. For some reason, when we transliterated it, we added the -na at the end. The Hebrews named this what or as Strong put it, whatness.

"This [is] the word which Yahweh has commanded, 'Gather every man of it, according to his appetite [lit., eating]—an omer apiece according to the number of persons of each of you whom [is] in his tent will he take.'" [Ex. 16:16]

This time we actually have the word for command; the Piel perfect of tsâvâh (ה ָו ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-VAW] and it is found primarily in the Piel and it means command, lay charge, order. In the actual command, the Hebrew is a bit wordy and does not follow the simple English at all; but the command is for the man to go out and gather about one omer of manna per person for those in his tent. This is a pretty specific command. Israel was not all that interested in listening to God's Word or obeying God's Word.

This verse actually reads an omer a skull or an omer a head, which sounds grisly, so I have opted to record the intent of the verse, as most translators do: an omer per person or an omer apiece.

An omer is a dry measure which is approximately equal to two quarts, one pint and one tenth (of a pint?) in English corn measure

And the people of Israel did so; and some gathered much and [some gathered] little. [Ex. 16:17]

I didn't even bother to try to be too literal with this verse. In this short verse we have four verbs. We have the Qal imperfect of the oft times used ׳âsâh (ה ָ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-SAWH], it it means do, make. Gathered is the Qal imperfect of lâqaţ (ט ַק ָל) [pronounced law-KAT], meaning simply to gather, to pick, to pick up. This is all followed by the definite article plus the Hiphil participle of râbâh (ה ָב ָר) [pronounced raw-BAW], which means to increase, to become many. The last verb is the Hiphil participle of mâ׳aţ (ט ַע ָמ) [pronounced maw-ĢAT] and it means to decrease, to lessen. The Hiphil participle is a verbal adjective which indicates continued causative action. It was their disobedience or their indifference to God's Word which caused them to gather too much. This verse alone stands out because it is filled with verbs and it shows us that the Israelites did not put a lot of stock in God's Word. God's Word was very specific and they ignored it.

And when they measured with an omer, the much had nothing over and the little had no lack; each gathered according to his appetite [lit., eating]. [Ex. 16:18]

The much and the little in this verse are the exact same Hiphil participles that were in the previous verse, all accompanied by the definite article. Despite their disobedience, God enforced their compliance.

God's instructions were probably more detailed than what we have here. Moses may have given all of thee instructions at once or spread them out over a few days. Again, this is arranged and recalled by Moses topically and not chronologically. We first deal with the gathering too much and the too little. This is likely what occurred the first couple days. Then we have the excess problem.

But they did not listen to Moses and some left of it until the morning and it bred worms and became foul-smelling and Moses was angry with them. [Ex. 16:20]

I am reminded fo the story from the news from Lake Woebegone of the cabins and the rural owner who throws a family out because they cannot follow one, simple instruction. Moses has given them the Word of God. This was a direct, specific command from God. There are pastors today who do not teach God's Word carefully, examining it for its true meaning and context. There are thousands upon thousands of Christians today who listen to what they want and ignore what they want. The Bible is crystal clear on the prohibition of sex outside of marriage (including pre-marital sex), yet an incredible number of Christians ignore this and follow the morality they have learned from movies and television. There are a lot of homosexual Christians who will not attend a church unless it is pro-homosexuality. The Bible is clear about homosexuality. That may be their natural inclination, but that does not make it right. There are commands in the Bible concerning mental attitude sins, verbal sins, judging and gossip—totally ignored by Christians. And I should be clear on what I mean by ignore: these Chrisitans will not even name these sins to God to get back into fellowship. They are so bull-headed and so wrong that they refuse to recognize their behavior as sinful, willfully rejecting the Word of God wheneverf it steps on their toes. So if you read this passage and are thinking to yourself, "In terms of instructions, this is pretty damn simple; how come they can't obey this?"; then examine your own life; examine the clear teaching of God's Word as it applies to you and ask the same question of yourself.

The verb found here is bâ‛ash (ש ַע ָ) [pronounced baw-ASH] an dit means to have a bad smell, to stink, to become malodorous. God made certain that they noticed their lack of obedience. You may wonder doesn't this contradict the previous couple verses. Not necessarily. Some continued to gather too much and God no longer took up the slack for their disobedience. Some rationed their family when it came to eating this and made them save some until the next day because they did not trust God to provide them food for the next day. It boils down to simply trusting what God has said.

They gathered it each and every morning [lit., in the morning in the morning] [each] man according to his appetite; however, when the sun grew hot, it melted. [Ex. 16:21]

What we are seeing here is a number of scenarios; in this case, some was kept outside. You see, they tried keeping the excess inside, but it began to stink and attracted vermin; so they decided to just leave it outside the tent to see how it would fare there. Outside the tent, it melted. I know that many of you have heard this story many times or have read it and it never occurs to you what is happening here. They are trying everything they can to get around the Word of God. They intentionally are disobeying the command that God has given them, and when things don't work out one way in their disobedience, they try disobeying in a nother way. Let's go back to pre-marital sex. Some Chrisitans might try recreational sex because they are just driven by their hormones and they have no control. They find out that this does not work. They are unahppy; the people that they hook up with are bad for them. They spend years in go-no where relationships. So then they try putting off sex until the fifth or sixth date, deciding that they will wait for someone that they like a lot. This doesn't work. Then they decide to date Christians seriously, but to occasionally have sex with unbelievers to satisfy their lust. They are looking for every single angle that they can play against God's Word. And they cannot understand why they are miserable and they cannot seem to locate their right man or right woman (a big thing for most people). Homosexuals might go through a similar scenario—it is clear in the Bible the homosexual behavior is forbidden, so they might ignore this and practice indiscriminant homosexual behavior; then they may just opt for special relationships; then they might become sexually involved only when it looks as though it is a long-term relationship. They try everything except obedience to God's Word, as though God was confused or didn't know their circumstances. You didn't know that all of this was hidden here in this passage, did you? I know I didn't get evryone here but what mandate do you know of that says to do A and you are trying B, C, D, E and F? You try everything except obedience to God's Word. Now you kow what the Exodus generation was like.

And it came to pass on the sixth day, they gathered twice as much manna [lit., they gathered bread twice]; two omers apiece and when all of the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses... [Ex. 16:22]

Now here we have some obedience ot God's Word. In v. 5, this is what they were commanded to do for the Sabbath. This also shows us the extent of the miraculousness of all this. They could not gather twice as much on any day of the week eexcept for Fridays. If they gathered too much, the family consumed it anyway, or the manna rotted in their tent, or it melted when kept outside the tent. For five days, they could not gather a double portion without something going wrong. However, on the sixth, it was God's command that they double up on their gathering so that they did not have to gather any food on the Sabbath (Saturday). It is not clear to me whether they went out twice and gathered manna or if they just gathered twice as much (or whether some did one and others did the other); I don't think this distinction is important.

So, how does this all relate to pre-marital sex? Easily: mutually consentual sex of any kind is completely permissible within the confines of marriage. It does not work anywhere else; in fact it ruins marriages and relationships and the discovery of right man, right woman; but within God's confines, where marriage is the palying field, it works. Let's take another totally different illustration: Christian service. You can atten dchurch, listen to Bible teaching, give vast quantities of your money to a church or to some worthy organization and if you are an unbeliever or if you are out of fellowship, it does not mean a thing. It counts for nothing in God's plan and their is no spiritual growth enjoyed because of it. However, if a Chrisitan does the same thing while in fellowship, it is gold and precious silver to him. It can result in spiritual growth and temporal and eternal rewards. Some people reject confession of sin to God because they were Chrisitians for five years (or for twenty years) and they never confessed their sin at that time and they feel like they have done pretty darned well in the spiritual growth department, so they reject God's Word when it comes to naming their sins to God. Or they asked Jesus into their hearts and ever since, they have led a fairly moral life, and they are not about to follow God's Word and believe in Jesus Christ; to trust completely in His finished work upon the cross on our behalf. The reason for this is that they are arrogant and think that they have found a way which is a little bit better than God's Word. They are arrogant and they are depending upon their own works. Any unbeliever can clean up his life and stop drinking, stop taking drugs, stop lying and cheating, and even stop committing acts of sex outside of marriage and his life will benefit greatly from it. His mood will improve and many people will comment about how he is such a changed person and so much better to be around. He will even be happier because he is following God's laws, to a certain extent. However, if he does not believe in Jesus Christ, if he does not name his sins silently to God whenever he commits them, then he will spend eternity in the lake of fire and all of his good deeds and personal reform will mean absolutely nothing when it comes to eternal things. Temporally, his life might become 100% better. But eternally, he will burn.

In case you do not know, the Christian drill is simple. You believe in Jesus Christ, you trust in Him an dwhat He has done for you on the cross—He has paid for your sins, He has endured an eternity of hell for everything that you have done wrong, and all you need to do is to take it. That takes all of three, maybe five seconds and your eternity is sewn up. Then, when you sin, you name your sin to God. And finally, you live in God's Word. You find a pastor teacher who teaches God's Word verse by verse with extreme care to get it right. That is the Christian life in a nutshell. It is simple. Anyone can do it. And what is great, is that you can try this and if you don't like it, you can return to your former life. God allows you free will. You can't lose. It is just as though someone has handed you a free lottery ticket for $18,000,000 and all you have to do is scratch off the numbers. Certainly, you can return to your $29,000/year job if you decide that you do not like having $18,000,000. There is, however, one catch. When you believe in Jesus Christ, you enter into the family of God; you enter into Jesus Christ and you become a son of God through imputation and through the new birth. As a son of God, you are subject to discipline so if you chose to return to your former life of darkness, God will allow you to do that; however, He will also discipline you—and in some cases, severely.

...and he said to them, "This is what Yahweh has commanded: [a day of] solemn rest, a holy sabbath to Yahweh. Tomorrow, you in baking you will bake and in boiling you will boil and all that is left over set aside for for yourselves to be kept until the morning." [Ex. 16:23]

It sounds as though the elders of Israel have seen one wrong thing after another done, and then on Friday, they notice that everyone is gathering twice as much. So they go and tell Moses about it. However, this is the one place where the sons of Israel listened and obeyed.

So they set it aside until morning as Moses commanded them and it did not become malodorous and there were no worms in it. [Ex. 16:24]

There is one word which I have translated differently than Owen which I need to cover here; it is the Hiphil imperfect of nûwach (ַחנ) [pronounced noo-AKH] and it means to rest and in the Hiphil, to cause to rest. It can also mean to lay, to put down, to deposit. In both v. 23 and 24, I have translated this set aside. Notice that when following God's instructions, rather than the manna behaving contrary as it did when too much was collected on the other days, here it kept fresh.

And Moses said, "Eat it today for a Sabbath today to Yahweh. Today you will not find it in the field." [Ex. 16:25]

Again, notice that the instructions of Moses, which were probably given all at once and then repeated again for the sake of the elders are sprinkled with disobedience and obedience. This is the way that the mind of Moses worked—these things came to his memory topically and he dealt with the occurences of the exodus topically.

"Six days you will gather it but on the seventh day, a Sabbath, there will be none." [Ex. 16:26]

So it does not matter whether they gather an extra maount of manna or not; it will not be out there on the Sabbath for gathering. It is at this time that we need to cover the Doctrine of the Sabbath Day—not finished yet!! I had hoped to put this off until Ex. 20 for the ten commandments, but there will be a great many doctrines covered at that time so we'll cover this at this juncture. God is keeping the Jews on a fairly short reign here. Even if they feel like disobeying, that just means that they will be hungry on the Sabbath.

And it came to pass on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather and they found none. [Ex. 16:27]

This verse was added so that you don't think that suddenly all of Israel began to obey God's Word. As in all groups of Christians, some obeyed and some didn't. Some tried every way that they could think of to get around God's Word, some tried a few things, and some obeyed. There are always those who will test God's Word.

Then Yahweh said to Moses, "How long do [all of] you refuse to keep my commandments and my laws?" [Ex. 16:28]

Moses is not disobeying God's Laws; many of the Jews are. Refuse is in the 2nd person masculine plural so I added in all of; a Southerner would simply say you all and be done with it, because in the south there is a difference between 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural and they do not want to lose this distinction; a distinction which is not always clear by context. Moses represents the Jews to God and he represents God to the Jews. All communication to the children of Israel is done through Moses. He takes God's Word seriously enough to transmit it correctly. If it were just any Jew, they might convey that the foods outside, come and get it, and give no further details.

Speaking of this, why was manna given only daily? Why could they only gather enough for one day? Why was God so strict on these laws, which have only to do with getting breakfast and dinner? See the Doctrine of Manna.

See that Yahweh has given you the Sabbath; therefore, He gives you on the sixth day [enough] bread for two days. [All of you] remain, every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. [Ex. 16:29]

The Sabbath is to connect the idea of not working and not doing anything with spiritual things. God has finished everything and there is nothing for man to do when it comes to salvation. All we can do after believing in Jesus Christ is to listen and obey. It requires nothing more. God taught salvation in many ways and the no labor (or, no works) aspect of salvation is taught in the Sabbath. It's ironic how those religious groups which keep the Sabbath today are those who are the most works oriented. They picked up on the Sabbath where the Jews left off. The Jews became very legalistic on the Sabbath, incorporating a vast list of do's and don't's for the Sabbath, none of which are found in Scripture. They took a day of rest, a day of no work, a day devoted to God and changed into a day of legalism and works.

God did not give the people much choice here. The only way for them to get food was to go outside and gather it and there was no food outside to be gathered. They didn't have a regular job other than to pick up and move when God told them to, so they couldn't go to work. Therefore, they rested.

Now the house of Israel called its name manna; it [was like] white coriander seed and the taste of it [was] similar to wafers with honey. [Ex. 16:31]

As we have seen, there is a great deal of difference as to the actual composition of manna. We do not know if this was a natural product or whether it was a divine food substitute. It was certainly nutritious, tasty and versatile.

And Moses said, "This [is] the word which God has commanded: 'An omer of it for preservation throughout your generations that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the desert when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.'" [Ex. 16:32]

V. 6 and v. 32 have similar beginnings. What Moses says begins with the demonstrative adjective zeh (ה ∵ז) [pronounced zeh] and it means this, that. We have no verb, although one is implied. We then have the definite article and the masculine singular of dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR], the noun cognate for the verb speak. So this is what is spoken, thing, matter, speech, word, advice, counsel. I prefer word, as it is the Word of God. It is followed by a relative pronoun translated what, which. This phrase is often rewritten for the English tongue as this is what God has commanded. It is clearly not a word-for-word translation, nor does it pretend to be, but it does convey the meaning.

In my occasional attempt to be literal, you'll notice that there is no verb in the command until the Qal imperfect of see. This is because there are no verbs until that point in time. It is a natural desire to want to write, you will keep (or, guard) an omer of it throughout your generations. However, this is the prefixed preposition lâmed or l^e (׃ל) [pronounced le], which means to, for, in regard to. Its object is the word mishmereth (ת ∵ר ∵מ ׃ש ̣מ) [pronounced mish-MEH-reth] and it means guard, watch, sentry, charge, keeping, preservation. A literal translation would be for preservation, for keeping; however, it would be reasonable to translate this to be kept, to be preserved. To give a better English sense to this verse, we might render it: This is what God has commanded: You will preserve [or keep] an omer of it [manna] throughout your generations, so that they might see the food that I fed you with in the desert when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Keep in mind, an omer is one full serving of manna. God will have several things placed under guard for the Jews to contemplate. The manna speaks of God's daily provision and guidance. The Jews will spend 40 years out in the desert; a desert incapable of sustaining 2,000,000 lives in one place. Yet God kept them alive and allowed one omer of manna to remain, resisting decomposition, as a reminder to the Jews for several generations. Not all Jews had easy access to the Scriptures (in fact, very few did); and they had to be taught Bible doctrine verbally and through symbols (the sacrificing of the lambs, the manna, the Sabbath). Every time that they celebrated a feast day, it would be filled with things symbolic. Their children would inquire what does this mean? What is this all about? It provided the adults with the perfect opportunity to share enough of God's divine truth that many of the children could believe and be saved.

And Moses said to Aaron, "Take a jar and put an omer [of] manna inside and place it before Yahweh for preservation before the face of Yahweh throughout your generations." [Ex. 16:34]

The testimony either refers to what Moses had written down from God speaking to him, or it refers to the two tablets of the Law. In any case, this pot of manna was placed before the Ark of the Covenant and, later on, in the Ark of the Covenant (Heb. 9:4).

And the people of Israel ate the manna forty years until the came to an inhabitable land. They ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan. [Ex. 16:35]

This is an interesting verse. Suddenly, we are projected forty years into the future. This does not mean that all of this was recorded forty years after the Exodus or that even the past few verses were. There is definite indication that the Laws handed down by God were recorded soon after they were given (read Ex. 17:14, for instance). The Law was copied almost innumerable times possibly once or twice before they got out of the desert. Moses might have been the executive editor by that time and it may have been up to Scribes to copy God's Word. Because we have no manuscripts from this time period, or anywhere close to it, it is likely that God's Word was recorded on the very ephemeral, such as papyrus paper. As they got further out into the desert, they may have resorted to writing on animal skins, which would be a little more durable. Some things were recorded on stone and others on columns which are with us even to this day; just as today some things are written in a newspaper, which has a relatively short life compared to those things written on quality glossy paper in expensive hardbound books. My point is, that these final verse could have been added by way of information on the second or third copy of the Law. That particular day is commemorated by Joshua in Joshua 5:11–12: And on the day after the Passover, on that very day, they ate some of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. And the manna ceased on the day after they had eaten some of the product of ht land, os that the sons of Israel no longer had manna, but they ate some of the yield of the land of Canaan during that year. It is very likely that Joshua added this verse. He wrote Scripture (the book of Joshua and the last couple chapters of the book of Deuteronomy) and needed to copy the books of the law; he added annotations as he felt necessary (and as guided by the Holy Spirit).

The fact that there was enough manna for all of Israel to feed upon for forty years is an incredible miracle, so the phrase ate the manna is repeated, although this sentence could have been easily written in such a way as to not repeat the phrase. Joshua, being one of the men who ate manna everyday and found it in abundance, was rightly impressed by this.

Introduction: Chapter 17 covers two basic topics. The Israelites are tested with regard to water and God provides them water. The second half of Ex. 17 deals with a skirmish between the Israelites and Amalek.

And all the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the wilderness of Sin by stages according to the commandment [lit., mouth] of Yahweh. They camped a Rephidim, but there was no water [for] the people to drink. [Ex. 17:1]

By stages means that the Israelites would move a bit, traveling for most of a day, and then make camp and stay for awhile. We don't know if they would remain at any one place for a few days, a week or a month, but keep in mind that we have a city all moving here where babies are being born, children and women are a part of the movement, so it does not move very quickly.

When it says that Israel traveled according to the mouth of Yahweh, this is a simply metonymy of the mouth for what the mouth says (and, obviously, a anthropomorphism is thrown in to boot). Similar phrase is also found in Num. 3:16, 39 20:24 27:14 Deut. 1:26, 43.

We do not know today where exactly Rephidim is. Even though we have a fairly detailed explanation in Num. 33:13–15, this depends upon the location of Mt. Sinai, and that is still debated.

Therefore, the people found fault with Moses and said, "Give us water to drink." So Moses said to them, "Why do you find fault with me? Why do you put to the test Yahweh?" [Ex. 17:2]

The first verb is the Qal imperfect of rîyb (בי ̣ר) [pronounced reeb] and it means grapple, but it is used in a more figurative sense; therefore, it means strive, contend, find fault, bitch. There is nothing in the world wrong with the elders or the people coming to Moses and telling him that they need water and request that he speak to Yahweh to have the water provided for them. That would have been entirely acceptable. Our problem here is that they still do not recognize God's power and God's provision (even though they are eating manna every day of the week). It is no different than us complaining to God about our circumstances. I recall working with three women many years ago that spent the majority of their time bitching and moaning and complaining. Mostly it was about other people, but often it concerned where they were in life and the problems that they had. God made provision for their problems, for your problems and for the troubles of the Israelites in eternity past. He would prefer for them to approach Moses with respect and ask for water to be provided.

Moses is sick and tired of their complaining to him as though it is his fault. Moses recognizes that he is carrying out the orders of Yahweh and that whether he goes along with the program or not, Israel is moving forward toward Canaan according to God's plan. So Moses can either go along with the program or not. However, any test that they face is not his fault.

What they are doing is the Piel imperfect of nâçâh (ה ָס ָנ) [pronounced naw-SAW] which means put to the test and it can be used with God as the subject and man as the object (which is in a good sense) or vice versa, which is in a bad sense. It is okay to call the Lord on a promise; you go to the Bible, or, preferably to your soul where a promise is, and call on God to fulfill His promises to you.

However, the people thirsted for water and the people murmured against Moses and said, "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to kill me and my children and my cattle with thirst?" [Ex. 17:3]

Have you ever known such a group of whiners. You want to slap them. But then every time we whine and complain about anything, we are behaving exactly like the Israelites. God knows that they need water. God did not bring them into the desert to kill them. They are being tested and they are failing miserably. V. 2 says that they are testing God, but He is also testing them.

So Moses called to Yahweh, saying, "What shall I do with this people. It won't be long before [lit., yet a little] they stone me." [Ex. 17:4]

Stone is in the Qal perfect; the perfect tense means that it is looked upon as a completed action or the action is looked upon as a whole, even though it has not occurred yet. The possible event of stoning would not occur several times nor would it be a prolonged process where they would stone Moses, catch a bite to eat, and then go back and stone him some more. It would occur one time and then it would be over. That is the meaning of the perfect tense.

Moses is going to God with a legitimate concern. He is not doubting God, he is not asking for another job, he is not asking Aaron to take over. He is asking for guidance and expressing concern.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Pass before the people taking with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand your rod with which you struck the Nile and proceed." [Ex. 17:5]

What Moses has done is not wrong and God will give him exactly what to do. And note that Moses will follow God's directions to the letter. He will not be collecting too much manna, he will not save manna on the wrong day, he will not try keeping it in the tent and outside both. God tells him what to do and he does exactly that. Moses was thereby oriented to God's plan. The rod that Moses took into his hand both cleared a path in the water for the Israelites to walk through and brought judgement down upon the Egyptians which resulted in their deaths (Ex. 14:27).

"Watch! I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you will strike the rock and water shall come out of it that the people may drink; and Moses did that in the sight of he elders of Israel." [Ex. 17:6]

Now, as far as we have gone in Exodus, we might be far enough along for you to understand the concept of the parables. Much of what occurred in the Old Testament was a parable of what was to come; a shadow of the good things to come. It all occurred, it was not made up—but it paralleled what would soon occur and was the gospel for the Old Testament believers. For the Law [which should not be constrained to refer only to the ten commandments or to the laws handed down by God, but to the five books of Moses and to the rest of the Old Testament], since it has a shadow of the good things to come—not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offered continuously, make perfect those who draw near [to the altar] (Heb. 10:1).

What is pictured here is a rock about three times the size of Moses and water shooting out kind of like a hose was turned on full blast. This is not what happened. There is no way that a hose could water two million people and their cattle. This rock essentially capped a geyser and when it was struck and broken, water may have begun like a hose, but it quickly became a gusher of water, forming a very large pool of water. How do I know this? Easy—it would not make sense for Moses and Aaron, or a couple of guys designated by them, to fill up jars of water and pass them around to two million people. We are allowed to think as we read Scripture. Furthermore, Psalm 114:8 reads: Who turned the rock into a pool of water. The flint into a fountain of water. We have a small lake formed here.

And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah because of the contention of the children of Israel and because they put Yahweh to the test by saying, "Is Yahweh among us or not?" [Ex. 17:7]

Massah is the same word in the Hebrew as maççâh (ה ָ ַמ)

[pronounced mas-SAWH] means test, trial, proving. Meribah is the word merîybâh (ה ָבי ̣ר ׃מ) [pronounced mer-ee-BAH] and it means strife, contention. Although Moses explains to us why this place was named what it was, it's always nice to take a trip into the Hebrew to see the actual word from which these names came. There is no difference even insofar as a vowel point between the proper nouns and the words from which they were taken.

At first, this appears to be an abrupt change. Whereas many people were afraid of Israel, or more specifically, the God that bought them, there are always those who are looking to take down the toughest kid on the block, and that was Amalek. Some are so brazen and arrogant that despite what happened to Egypt, they think that they can withstand the Mighty God. Again, there is a parallel to today—there have been those who defy God to strike them with lightening if He exists; there are those who know full well in their soul that there is a God and that there are laws to which they are subject, and they defy that God and those laws. We will later fid out that Amalek’s attack was from the rear, where the weak and tired members of the exodus were (Deut. 25:17–18. This is Amalek, whom we will cover in much greater detail in Num. 24.

Now, Fausset

has a very interesting view of this, which, insofar as I know, is unique to him. Fausset: Contentions for possession of a well were of common occurrence (Gen. 21:25 26:22 Ex. 2:17); in Moses' message asking Edom and Sihon the Amorite for leave of passage, water is a prominent topic (Num. 20:17 21:22; compare Judges 5:11). This constitutes the special heinousness of Amalek's sin in God's eyes. They tried to deprive God's people of a necessary of life which God had just supplied by miracle, thus fighting not so much with them as with God. This accounts for the special severity of their doom. The execution was delayed; but the original sentence at Rephidim was repeated by Balaam, and 400 years subsequently its execution was enjoined at the very beginning of the regal government as a test of obedience; compare 1Sam. 12:12–15. In other words, the Amalekites attacked the Israelites over a matter of water rights, even though this was water provided for the Israelites miraculously by God. One might reasonably draw a parallel to unbelievers who want to keep others from the truth.

Some believe that we have already been introduced to Amalek as a person. He was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:15–16). However, this is not the same Amalek, but probably a complete separate and tribe, which had been established much earlier in time. They had heard, as everyone around them did, about the Jews and Yahweh's destruction of Egypt and they decided to meet the Jews and destroy them before they came into their land. As a nomadic tribe, they could be found all over the Sinai desert region; one author places them between the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, the more eastern of the two outstretched fingers of the Red Sea, the other being the Gulf of Suez, the Sinai Peninsula between them (where Moses and the Israelites were). Here, as well as in v. 13 and in Joshua 10:28, 40 I Sam. 18:7, the name of Amalek stands for the tribe of Amalek. The Amalekites will play a big part throughout Israel’s history, beginning here and extending all the way to the end of the Old Testament in the book of Esther (Haman, that vicious anti-Semite, was a descendant of Amalek).

And Moses said to Joshua, "Choose men for us and go out and fight with Amalek tomorrow. I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand." [Ex. 17:9]

Isn't this marvelous—Moses is no longer falling to pieces, unsure of what to do or to say. He knows that God has a plan for him and for the children of the Israel and he knows that they will survive this skirmish. He carries the rod of God, not as good luck, but God has caused Moses to use it repeatedly in a demonstrative way. One of the tings that the use of his staff reveals is that the Israelites are protected by supernatural means.

So Joshua did as Moses told him and fought with Amalek; and Moses and Aaron went up to the top of the hill. [Ex. 17:10]

In order to be demonstrative, in order for God to get the credit for what occurred, Moses and Aaron had to be in a place where they could be seen by all—both the Israelites and the Amalekites. What would occur was not voodoo or magic, but something where both sides could see that God controlled the battle. Moses just had to be in a place where this could be seen.

And it came to pass that whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed and whenever he lowered [lit. rested] his hand, Amalek prevailed. [Ex. 17:11]

Notice that this has to be in a very visible place where all could see Moses. They had to see that supernatural means of battle had been employed by the Israelites and that they did not win on their own merit. There is also an illustration here: just as the arm of the Lord is the strength of Moses, and thereby is the strength of Israel; the arm of Moses here, as God's representative

, is the strength and the might of Israel. Raising his hands is also illustrative of prayer. Israel’s greatest weapon is God; however, God expects for Israel to call upon Him in prayer, because, in doing so, God is glorified. As long as Israel appeals to God (as symbolized by the raised arms of Moses), God will fight for Israel. As David wrote many years later: The day I call out, my enemies turn back. This I know: Elohim [is] for me (Psalm 56:9).

But the hands of Moses grew weary [lit., heavy] so they took a stone and placed it under him and he sat upon it and Aaron and Hur held up his hands on both sides [lit., on this side one and on that side one] and it came to pass that his hands were steady until the sun went down. [Ex. 17:12]

So that no one would think that Moses would raise and lower his hands to see what would happen, and thereby place the sons of Israel into peril, his arms were only so strong and when he raised his staff, he became naturally tired. When he brought his arms downs to rest, the battle would turn; and when he raised them, the battle would go in favor of the Jews. Eventually, Aaron and Hur held up his arms on both sides while Moses sat (recall that he is 80+ years old). You maybe thinking to yourselves right now, who's Hur

? We only find Hur mentioned twice: here and in Ex. 24:14. Joshua also seemed to come out of nowhere; however, these are two trusted believers—perhaps two of the elders—who have given their unqualified support to Moses because of their faith in Yahweh.

And Joshua neutralized Amalek and his people with the mouth of the sword. [Ex. 17:13]

The NASB tells us that Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and Owen tells us taht he mowed Amalek down. The actual word used is the Qal imperfect of châlash (ש ַל ָח) [pronounced khaw-LASH] from a root which means prostrate. This word means to weaken, to prostrate, to disable, to neutralize. We also find this word used in Job 14:10 Isa. 14:12. Very few details are given as to what occurred in this battle. Just what was important. What was important was that Joshua prevailed over Amalek and to God they owed the victory. However, Joshua did not completely destroy all of the Amalekites because we will see that they will continue to return to harass the Jews.

When it says that Joshua neutralized Amalek with the mouth of the sword, it could be looked upon in two ways. The more genteel way that when something is eaten, it is gone and the mouth of the sword refers to death on the battlefield. The more grotesque and graphic way of viewing this phrase is the sword biting chunks of flesh off of the enemies. You choose. Bullinger expresses it this way: ...it is not a mere sword, but a sword with its sharp devouring edge, which is thus compared to a mouth

. In any case, this gives us at least the weapons of war. Although it was not spelled out for us earlier, the Israelites must have gotten swords from the Egyptians when they left. Either that, or the choice of the word sword refers just to death in battle and not to a particular weapon. I opt for the former approach. The swords used may have been the same ones that they used in the field to harvest with and to cut meat with.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in the book and tell Joshua [lit., place (it) in the ears of Joshua] that [lit., for] I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." [Ex. 17:14]

I believe that this is the first time that it has been recorded in Scripture that Moses has been told to record these events. Notice that the definite article is used with book; meaning a particular book. In this case, it was God's Word and this particle causes me to think that such a book was already in existence and that Moses knew which book God was referring to. The implication of the verse was that this being written down was to tell Joshua that at some point in time, Amalek would be blotted out (see also Num. 24:20). Joshua needed this to be written down because he would have several encounters with Amalek throughout his tenure as second in command and then as Commander General over the forces of Israel. This does not mean that this is the first time that God has told Moses to write this information down. It is my opinion that Moses has had access to Genesis—or the documents from which Genesis came—and that he had already recorded some of what had occurred. In any case, at least by this time Moses began to record the events of the Exodus.

This also tells us that there was a certain amount of editing which took place. There are some authors, who, because they are predisposed to reject miracles and prophecy, believe that much of this was written down hundreds of years later. However, this passage, compared to Ex. 16:35 tell us that some editing did take place (and there is no reason to think that anyone else besides Moses did this). In Ex. 16:35, Moses tells us that the sons of Israel will eat manna in the desert for the next forty years. However, in this verse, Moses is told to record specific events in the book. This means that Moses either obeyed God's command forty years later or he obeyed it when God gave it, as he was wont to do, and later added a comment here or there, like Ex. 16:35, which then became a part of God's Word.

And Moses built an altar and called the name of it Yahweh my standard... [Ex. 17:15]

Nêç (ס ֵנ) [pronounced nace] means standard, ensign, signal, sign, and even miracle. This is not unlike a flag representing the advance and victory of an army. No doubt that this banner was placed high on the hill, where everyone could see. It was a mental rallying point. Now would be an ideal time to explore The Doctrine of Altars—not finished yet!!

The last verse quote of God is difficult to ascertain. The Emphasized Bible gives two readings: "Because of a hand against the throne of Yah, Yahweh has war with Amalek from generation to generation." The alternate reading is "Surle the hand is on the banner of Yah. Yahweh has war with Amalek from generation to generation." NASB: "The Lord has sworn: the Lord will have war against Amalek from generation to generation." Owen: ""A hand upon the banner of Yahweh—war Yahweh will have with Amalek from generation to generation." The NRSV doesn't give us anything new by way of translation, but tells us that the Hebrew translation is uncertain. The quote begins with a conjunction, according to Owen; but luckily, Zodhiates gives the actual Strong's number for the word kîy (י ̣) [pronounced kee] which is not a conjunction but it means that, when, because. When we have two phrases tied together like this, a causal relationship is the likely choice. Therefore we will translate this because. This is followed by the word for hand. Had this been the word for arm, we would have looked at a connection between this verse and Moses lifting up his arms.

Then we have the preposition ‛al (ל ַע) [pronounced al] which means above, over, upon, against. Owen translates the next substantive banner, but it is not the same word as we have in the previous verse. But this is the word that causes us the problems. Strictly speaking, it is kêç (ס ֵ) [pronounced kace] and it is found here and only here. This could be an abbreviation for or a transcribing error of the word kîççê’ (א ֵ ̣) [pronounced kis-SEH] which means throne (which is the choice of BDB) or it can be a transcription error for the word nêç (ס ֵנ) [pronounced nace], our word for banner, standard, flag. Note how similar the Hebrew k (כ) and the Hebrew n (נ) are. So perhaps you are wondering where did the NASB come up with the translation sworn? That comes from Strong's; Strong's mentions that this could be a transcription error for banner, and then places with this the word sworn (which is nothing like the word for swear in the Hebrew). Where does the idea that the word swear is in this verse come from? The land being lifted up is way of saying someone solemnly swears. This verse is obviously elliptical, so some would insert after hand the words lifted up, to supply the additional meaning

. This could be a a continuation of v. 15, because when Moses names something, he often gives a reason why (see v. 7).

This leaves us undecided for the first phrase. The last phrase also has no verbs. It begins with the word for war, the lâmed preposition (to, for, in regard to), and Yahweh. Then we have the preposition with, Amalek, and the phrase from generation to generation. So after all this time spent on this verse (you see a paragraph or two and I have spend well about two hours on this), I still do not have a translation that I am happy with.

...saying, "Because of a hand against the standard [or, throne] of Yahweh: war to Yahweh with Amalek from generation to generation." [Ex. 17:16]

So we have two things that Joshua must know: eventually, Israel will prevail over Amalek; however, they will war with one another for several generations. Also, if there is some sort of chronology to the first five books of the Law, this would be Israel's first real battel with anyone.

Introduction: Chapter 18 is a marvelous chapter which brings Moses' father-in-law back into the picture and allows us to see from where Moses received a great deal of his spiritual training. Moses would be a little over 80 years old here; therefore his father-in-law would be in his 100's. We find out what happened to Moses' wife and children. Apparently when Moses had his wife circumcise his young adult sons, she got so pissed off, that she made a scene (Ex. 4:25–26). We do not hear from her until now because either Moses sent her back to her father or she grabbed the children and left in Ex. 4 or soon thereafter. Her reaction in any case reveals that she had no support for Moses and the plan of God for his life. This right here is another pertinent lesson from the books of Moses written 3500 years ago—do not marry someone who is spiritually immature. Moses grew spiritually when he stayed with his new family at the hand of his father-in-law. It would be lgoical that his wife would have also experienced some spritiual growth at the hand of her father, but she had not. Because she did not, she either deserted Moses or Moses had to send her away when things began to get hairy in Egypt. In any case, Moses did not have the support of a wife during the most important crossroads of his life. Why? Because he had not chosen a wife carefully. She was probably beautiful and a spiritual moron. God has a plna for all of our lives—males and females both. If we choose to spend our lives with a spiritual moron, we have immediately compromised our service to God. We lose out on innumerable blessings in time and in eternity based upon this one poor choice. We may go through our entire life feeling that we have missed something or we are missing something. A tremendous feeling of unfulfillment, of ennui. Even if we want to choose activities which are honoring to God, a choose a course of action which is in God's plan for our lives, there will always be this anvil attatched to our leg keeping us from going in that direction. If you have already made this choice and realize what a horrible mistake you have made, then you must do as Peter suggests: In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives (I Peter 3:1). Although there is no corresponding verse for the husbands, the counterpart is obvious: In the same way, you husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church, that they might be won without a word by the behavior of their husbands. This is choice #1. #2 is what happened to Moses, the details of which we are not privy to, but by v. 2, we will have a fairly good idea as to what happened.

Jethro, a priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law hear of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel, his people since Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt. [Ex. 18:1]

We have already seen that Moses first knew Jethro as Reuel (Ex. 2:18) and later as Jethro (Ex. 3:1). The former name was possibly the more formal, as we men would originally address our (future) father-in-law's as Mr. So-and-so and then later as plain So-and-so. That is, we first address them by their last names and, after we have become comfortable with them and they have given us permission, we address them by their first names. This is all that occurred here. What we need here is the Doctrine of Jethro (Moses’ father-in-law)—not finished yet!

What happened in Egypt has been broadcast throughout all of the ancient world, mostly by transient traders, the original on-the-spot coverage news team; and when 2,000,000 people are moving, this makes news also. So Jethro knew that Moses was moving in his direction. Midian is on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba and there are some mountains in between, but there had been certainly a trade route which had been established that Jethro took. Jethro had a great fondness for Moses and Moses learned a great deal of spiritual information from Jethro (although he did not apply it and put it altogether until he had been in Egypt for a month). There is no hint of bitterness about his daughter having returned with two children (who were probably in their teens or older when circumcised) and were in their late teens or young adults now.

Now Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, had taken Zipporah, the wife of Moses after her parting. [Ex. 18:2]

Most translations render v. 2 as though there were two verbs here. The first (and only) verb is the 3rd person, masculine singular, Qal imperfect of lâqach (ח ַק ָל) [pronounced law-KAHK] and it means to take, to buy, to be taken in marriage, to take awy from, to take to oneself. Jethro is the subject and the direct object is Zipporah. What follows after the wife of Moses is the adverb ’achar (ר ַח ַא) [pronounced akh-AR] and it means behind, following part, after, afterwards, following. The final word in this verse is the masculine plural, 3rd person feminine suffix of (and I will depart form Strong's here) of shîllûwchîym (ם י ̣ח ̣ש ) [pronounced shil-loo-KHEEM] which has a meaning that is difficult to pinpoint. It only occurs here and in I Kings 9:16 and Micah 1:14. In the latter two verse, it is presents, that is, a dowry; and if used here in the same way, it would mean her dowry (presents). This is the noun cognate for the verb which means send. However, it can also mean partings, farewell and I believe that it could be translated in that way in all the passages without doing too much damage to the context. I am spending a lot of time with this one word which we will see very little of because most Bibles translate this as (or similar to) after he had sent her away (NASB, Owen, KJV, The Emphasized Bible, NRSV, The Amplified Bible). Why don't we trnslate it this way? Two reasons: (1) it is not a verb. (2) we only have a singular feminine suffix appended to this word; there is nothing to indicate that Moses actively sent Zipporah back home. What I am saying here is that she deserted him, Moses did not send her away.

...and her two sons, whom the name of the one: Gershom, for he said, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land

." [Ex. 18:3]

It had been approximately a year since Moses had seen this child. We do not know the ages of Gershom, but he is probably in his teens. This is the child that Moses and his wife, Zipporah, set out with originally when they were coming to Egypt.

And the name of the Other Eliezer, for the God of my father [is] my help and He had delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh. [Ex. 18:4]

We had already known about Gershom. However, this second son was born after Zipporah deserted Moses. He was conceived in their trip toward Egypt and when she left Moses, she was carrying his second child. Some of you men may have been confused by an incident such as this. However, this is simple to understand, if you have some understanding of women. Zipporah, at some point in time, knew that she was going to leave Moses. The night before she left him, they likely made love due to her aggressiveness. This was, in her mind, to be the last time that she would see Moses so he impregnated her and was probably nonplussed when she left him the next day; Moses thinking that everything was fine. It did not occur to him that she had already made her mind up and made love because she was leaving him. It was possibly just as intentional that she became impregnated. Therefore, Eliezer is an infant less than two years old. His name means God is help, and who do you think named him? Since Zipporah is not mentioned again throughout the rest of the Bible, this child was probably named by his grandfather, Jethro as he heard stories about what was occurring with Moses in Egypt. She returns with the two sons under the direction of her father; we have no reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, she has likely circumcised her second child, something which she probably vowed not to do (recall how unhappy she was over circumcising her son Gershom in Ex. 4:25–26). Eliezer's circumcison would have been at the insistance of her more spiritually mature father, Jethro. We can assume that he was circumcised because his lineage is later mentioned in I Chronicles and there is no accompanying record of his circumcision, meaning that it liely took place apart from Moses.

Speaking of whom, all the fellowship in this chapter will be between Jethro and Moses. We will never hear about Zipporah and Moses. Another possibility is that the second son is not even Moses'; he is not called Moses son in v. 3; they are called Zipporah's sons. They are mentioned again in I Chron. 23:15 as the sons of Moses, but Moses could have adopted Eliezer or he could have never made it known that he was not his biological son. We can only speculate here.

The Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the desert where he was camped there at the mountain of God. [Ex. 18:5]

Jethro favored Moses and was grace oriented himself. He was glad that one of his daughters married him and once all the news got back to Midain, he was pleased to take her back to Moses. He recognized that Moses had a serious part to play in God's plan. Whether Zipporah herself was convinced, we don't know yet.

And when it was told [or, one said] to Moses, "I, your father-in-law, Jethro, coming to you with your wife and her two sons with her"; [Ex. 18:6]

The beginning of this quote is a disputed reading. The Samaritan, Septuagint and Syrian read Lo, your father-in-law, Jethro, [is] coming to you instead of I, your father-in-law, Jethro [am] coming to you. You might be thinking, examine the verb and that will tell us the subject. Unofrutnately no because the verb is in the Qal active participle; there is no person or number. In either case, it is not Jethro who speaks to Moses but someone else comes to Moses and relays to him the words of Jethro; a man that either Jethro sent ahead to tell Moses to break the ice, so to speak or it could have been one of Moses' G-2 men guarding the perimeter. Because he was traveling with Moses' estranged wife, Jethro wanted to prepare Moses for his entrance. If Jethro initiated this message, it is because he needs to make certain that he can get through Moses' security system unscathed. Because of the altercation with the Amalekites, Moses had certainly organized some sort of a security system and when Jethro or one of his servants came through the lines, Moses was immediately apprised of the situation. We do not know which of the two things occurred, whether this message was initiated by Jethro or not because in retrospect, that was not important to Moses. What was important to Moses was the reunion between himself and his father-in-law and exactly how he heard that it was Jethro is only a minor, unimportant detail.

And notice that more has been made of Moses reunion with his father-in-law than is made of that with his wife. This is not a male bonding thing (although they were apparently the only males for awhile in that family), but it was a spiritual bonding thing. Jethro and Moses were both spiritually mature and had much more in common than Moses did with his own wife.

Then Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and did obeisance and kissed him and they asked ech other of their welfare and went into the tent. [Ex. 18:7]

Moses and his father-in-law, although they had seen one another a year or so again, loved each other. Jethro was, in a sense, Moses' spiritual father. Nothing is said about Moses and his wife who deserted him or Moses and his children—but a great deal is made of his reunion with Jethro.

Then Moses told his father-in-law all that Yahweh had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for the sake of Israel; [and] all of the hardship that had come upon them in the way; and how Yaahweh had delivered them. [Ex. 18:8]

What Jethro had heard was second hand, possibly distorted, and was nothing like hearing it from one who was there. Moses had become pretty enthusiastic about the deliverance effected by Yahweh on behalf of the Jews.

And Jethro rejoiced for all the good which Yahweh had done to Israel in that He had delivered him out of the hand of the Egyptians. [Ex. 18:9]

The verb delivered has with it the masculine, singular suffix, which is why it is translated delivered him rather than delivered them.

You obviously are noticing that I am going through most of this quickly. Not only is this narrative, but it recaps what has already occurred and indicates that this took place very soon after the Sea of Reeds buried the men of Pharaoh. There is not a lot here except to see the relationship beween Jethro and Moses.

And Jethro said, "Blessed be Yahweh, Who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh because he has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians." [Ex. 18:10]

Blessed means exceedingly happy and it is a term of worship and respect and adoration. Jethro, when he says Blessed be Yahweh, he is expressing respect, joy and adoration toward Yahweh, his God.

V. 11 is the first verse which has some problems in the translation and the meaning. The first phrase translates easily and its meaning is clear. The second phrase begins with kîy (י ̣) [pronounced kee], which can mean when, that, for, because. It is followed by the bêth preposition (in, into, with, among, at, by) and the definite artcle (which two books tell me it's there; I don't see it—furthermore, the Bêth lacks a dagesh and has a patah instead of a chiriq and I've spend an hour and can't find a similar example of this) This is followed by dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR] which means word, matter, thing.

Nevertheless, this is followed by ’ăsher (ר ∵שְַא) [pronounced ash-ER] and it is a relative pronoun meaning which, as to which, who, that, when, where, for as much as, in order that; it is a connective link without a simple translation. This is followed by the Qal perfect of zûwd (דז) [pronounced zood] which means to deal arrogantly with. This is followed by the preposiiton with and the 3rd masculine plural suffix. This latter portion of the verse could be translated inasmuchas they [the Egyptians] dealt arrogantly with them [the sons of Israel].

The repeated use of the word hand emphasizes the power of the Egyptians. They were much stronger, vigorous, and more war-like than the Jews were. Under normal circumstances, the Egyptians could have quelled any kind of rebellion staged by the Jews. However, these circumstances had not been normal; they were, for the most part, miraculous. Hand refers to power and might and its repetition emphasizes that it was a miracle for the Jews to be delivered from the Egyptians.

"Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all gods; because in the matter wherein they [the Egyptians] dealt arrogantly with them [the sons of Israel]." [Ex. 18:11]

Everything which has come before indicates that Jethro was already a believer in Jesus Christ. Whereas this could be his initial confession of faith, it is my opinion that he is confirming his faith—that what happened with Pharaoh and Moses made it absolutely clear that Yahweh is the God of the Universe.

And Jethro, father-in-law of Moses, took a burnt offering and sacrifices to God and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with the father-in-law of Moses before God. [Ex. 18:12]

This is Old Testament fellowship between believers. Sacrifices are offered to God and a meal is shared.

And on the next day Moses sat to judge the people. And Moses stood [before the] people from morning till evening. [Ex. 18:13]

Recall that we are dealing with a very apostate, faithless generation of Jews. From this general character comes a great many disagreements, lawsuits, altercations—particularly when 2,000,000 of them are traveling to where they know not encountering trials for which they have no spiritual assets. Tempers will flair, men will be petty, and they have but one person over them who even has a clue as to what it is all about: Moses; so they bring every little problem to Moses for him to sovle.

When the father-in-law of Moses saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, "What is this thing that you are doing [with regard to] the people? Why do you sit alone and all the people stand around you fro morning until evening?" [Ex. 18:14]

Moses is trying to do everything. Before, when first called to lead the Jews, he wanted to stand back and watch and be an errand boy and have Aaron speak to the people. Now he is doing everything. He is leading the people, he is speaking to God, he is writing Scripture, he is offering sacrifices and from morning until evening he is settling every single dispute that arose like an olden day People's Court.

And Moses said to his father-in-law, "Because the people come to me to inquire of God." [Ex. 18:15]

Don't misunderstand this verse. These people are not coming to Moses with question about God; they are not coming to him for spiritual information. Insofar as they are concerned, Moses is Judge Wapner and they go to him to get their revenge on someone else who has pissed them off. Ostesively they say it is because Moses represents God to them and to let God judge over this matter of that; but, what it boils down to is they think they're right and they want everyone to know it. It was their entertainment of the day to go to court and watch these proceedings and to be able to tell someone else, "I was right and you were wrong."

"When they have between them a dispute, they come and I decide between a man and his neighbor and I make them know the statutes of God and His decisions." [Ex. 18:16]

This is some subtle arogance on Moses' part. Who doesn't want to run the lives of everyone else? When you are given the chance to tell someone else what is wrong with their lives and how they can straighten themselves out, you jump at the chance. Especially if it is someone whom you are jealous of or who does not work as hard as you or has more things than you, etc. Furthermore, Moses was one of the very few mature believers there. He didn't know what else to do. People had disputes and these had to be solved. It might have begun with a few minor altercations but now Moses had a court docket which lasted all day long.

The the father-in-law of Moses said to him, "This thing that you are doing is not good." [Ex. 18:17]

In this verse we have dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR] again, which can mean word, matter, thing. In this case, even situation is acceptable. The 2nd mascluine singular personal pronoun plus the Qal active participle of ‛âsâh (ה ָ ָע) [pronounced aw-SAWH] means what you are doing. Jethro has some spiritual maturity and he can see that this is not working out as it should. Moses has shouldered far too much responsibility. What he needs to do is to delegate. A good executive can delegate. One of the things that can make a good president (or any political leader) is one who can choose a cabinet with integrity and then delegate responsibility. A great company president can choose and promote outstanding vice presidents and administrative assistants to the top and delegate the responsibility to them. A great movie producer has to delegate authority to the director, the casting agency, the sound effects crew, the cameramen, etc. There is no way that one person can do it all. A good pastor is not sweeping up afterwards, typing thank you cards, making calls concerning repairs to be done on the church, counting and depositing money from the offering, turning out the lights at night and locking the doors; nor is is counseling as a thrid-rate psychologist. He is studying God's Word and presenting to his flock. He has delegated the responsibility for the other things to those under him.

"You will wear out both youself and these people who are with you. This matter [is] too heavy for you; you are not able to perform it alone." [Ex. 18:18]

When the word gam (מ ַ) [pronounced gam] is used twice in close successession, it means both...and. By itself, it means yea, moreoever, also; addition is involved. The demonstrative pronoun used with people is zeh (ה ∵ז) [pronounced zeh] is properly rendered this rather than these. It is the near demonstrative pronoun and it could be rendered this, here, this here, in this.

Moses did have support personnel, but because of the large number of people coming to him, coming to that one place, his aides were used inefficiently. Surely you can have two people do the same job with the same number of assistants and one can complete it and another can't even get it half finished. Even in both cases all parties invovled can be working. Now it is possible that some of Moses' aides were standing around waiting for decisions to be made; but then if they were there 12–16 hours per day, each and every day except for the Sabbath, even if they just stood and did nothing for three or four hours a day, they were still exhausted and worn down.

"Now listen to my voice and I will counsel you and God will be with you and you will be for the people before God; and you bring their cases to God." [Ex. 18:19]

For some reason, both Owen and the NASB

both translate the 1st person, singular Qal imperfect, 2nd person masculine sufix of yâ‛ats (צ ַע ָי) [pronounced yaw-ATS] as I will give you counsel and it simply means cousel, advise. Why will give is inserted is beyond me. The Emphasized Bible gets it right, as does The Amplified Bible. You would think when you could translate one word for one word that translators would jump at that chance.

Jethro has thought this out a great deal and he has a five- part plan. He states Moses' place as a priest to God—that is, Moses represents the people before God and he brings their cases before God. This does not mean that he prays to God about every single minor problem—Moses operates under his own wisdom and the difficult cases might be brought directly to God.

"And you will teach them the statutes and the decisions and make known to them the way in which they must walk and the deed[s] they must do." [Ex. 18:20]

There is something extremely important alluded to here and in many previous passages which I have not yet covered. There are absolutes in this life; there are things which are right and wrong and these are the statutes and laws of God. We hope in our judicial system to mirror those statutes and laws. It does not matter that God has not delivered to the Jews the Law yet. This does not mean that it doesn't exist nor does this mean that there is no right and wrong yet. For the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do instintively those things from the Law. These [Gentiles], not having the Law, are a law unto themselves in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing wintess, and their thaoughts alternately accusing or else defending them (Rom. 2:14–15). Part two of this plan: Moses is to record God's system of laws and precepts and make these things known to the people.

"Moreoever, choose [see] from all the people able men, such as fear God, men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe and place the people over them;" [Ex. 18:21a]

Part Three: find responsible men of integrity that can be entrusted with responsibility. When it reads they place the people oover them; this means that they place the good of the people above their own personal gain. This is the true concept of public service—a politician is to be a public servant, working for the good of the people and he is not there to line his own pockets with gold. Trustworthy is the Hebrew word ’emeth (ת ∵מ ∵א) [pronounced EH-meth] and it means faithfulness, truth, reliable, ethical. Able is the word chayil (ל ̣י ַח) [pronounced KHAH-yil] and it refers to strength and the many facets of strength; therefore it is often translated as strength, efficiency, army, wealth, virtue, valor.

"And place them over the people; rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties and rulers of tens." [Ex. 18:21b]

Part four: not only are men of great character going to be chosen but they will be organized into a heirarchy of authority. Having been in the school system, there was a heirarchy of authority which occasionally changed from year to year—but there was undoubtedly one in place. When I had a problem, I did not go immediately to the superintendant of the school district; nor when a student had a problem, they did not immediately go to the head principal of the school. There was a heirarchy of authortity. We have the exact same thing with our judicial system (which is primarily what Jethro is organizing).

"And let them judge the people at all times and it will come to pass in every matter great they will bring [it] to you and everfy small matter they shall decide so it will be easier for you and they will bear the burden with you." [Ex. 18:22]

Part five: these chosen men will take on some of Moses's responsibility and take off the constant pressure of people bickering over small matters from before him so that Moses can deal with the weightier matters.

"If you do what I have said and God commands you, then you will be able to be stablized and also all this people will go to their place in peace." [Ex. 18:23]

What I have said is my rather free-translation of dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR] and it meens word, speech, thing, matter. When Jethro adds and God commands you, he is adding, in his own way, if this is God's will. Jethro does not want to be presumptuous and propose something which would fall outside of the plan of God.

To be stablized is the Qal infinitive construct of ‛âmad (ד ַמ ָע) [pronounced aw-MAD], which means to stand, to take a stand, to be stablized. Moses would be given the time and the strength and the ability to stand before the people, still as their ruler. The people going to their own dwellings in peace means that they will be satisfied with the situation. That is, justice will be meted out quickly; they will have a chance to appeal to a higher court; and the laws will be clear to them so that breaking a law will be a bit more obvious.

Peace is exactly the word yo think it is: shâlôwm (םל ָש ) [pronounced shaw-LOME] and it means happy, in prosperity, in peace and well-being. It means that the people will be pleased with the change.

Right away we notice that Moses is one who will listen to another person's point of view. He is not a person who, because God speaks to him directly, that feels he has no need to listen to another human being. Now certainly he would shun human viewpoint; but he is not above listening to the wisdom of his father-in-law. Later, God the Holy Spirit will tell us that Moses was the meekest man on earth. This does not mean that he was some wimpy pushover that people liked to shove around. Moses was grace-oriented; his soul was meek and he revealed it in situations like this where he listens to the advice of his father-in-law, recognizes that it is well thoughout out, and he takes this advice. There are a number of areas where I would have done much better had I been meek (grace-oriented) enough to take the advice of another person.

Moses then listened and followed the advice [lit., gave heed to the voice] of his father-in-law and did all that he said. [Ex. 18:24]

Moses is a very intelligent man. Some men are too arrogant to listen to anyone else but themselves (I am using the word man in the generic sense). It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong or if their opinion has changed a dozen times; they will not listen to anyone else—not their spouses, their bosses, those below them, their parents, their children, their in-laws. Now certainly, there are a lot of people whose advice is next to worthless. Being grace-oriented does not mean that you go out on the street like some reporter and solicity the opinion of the masses. Any thinking person realizes that is generally a terrific waste of time. However, there are situations where we would do well to listen to others and Moses recognizes this; he recognizes that this is good advice; and he follows it. Note that he does not even have to run to God in prayer to get God's okay. Moses is spiritually mature. He recognizes things which fall into God's plan and things which do not. We have to make thousands of decisions a day. When God's Word is resident inside of us, we do not have to pray about it, call our pastor up and bother him, consult our astologist, etc. God's Word allows us to recognize that which falls within His will and that is all that Moses is doing. He recognizes the wisdom of his father-in-law and he runs with it.

Moses chose men of ability out of all Israel and made them heads over the people; rulers of thousands; rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifteies; and rulers of tens. [Ex. 18:25]

The first thing that Moses does is choose those who are spiritually mature, who are honest and have integrity, and he sets up a heirarchy of authority. This change in the structure of their government was a precedent which lasted well into the days of the judges (during which time, some of these judges overlapped in time, as they did not judge over all of Israel at any time).

And they judged the people at all times. They brought difficult cases to Moses but any small matter they decided themselves. [Ex. 18:26]

Qâsheh (ה ∵ש ָק) [pronounced kaw-SHEH] means hard, severe, difficult; it has a variety of applications which are determined by context. This is a case where the men of integrity judging the mater realize that they cannot make a determination that they are comfortable with so they bring it to Moses. This is not a case that necessarily involves more money or greater damage but it involves greater jurisprudence and greater wisdom. A man of integrity is not afraid to go to his superior for guidance or to allow those over him to handle something which is outside his area of expertise or beyond his ability to judge correctly.

The Moses allowed his father-in-law to depart [lit., sent away his father-in-law] and he went his way to his own country. [Ex. 18:27]

The 3rd person masculine singular, Piel imperfect of shâlach (ח ַל ָש) [pronounced shaw-LAHK] means to release, to discharge, to give over, to cast out, to send away, to dismiss. The Qal stem means merely to send, to send forth. Moses is the leader of these 2,000,000 and it is proper protocol for him to issue orders and mandates.

So you may wonder about the wife of Moses. We never hear about here again. Her spiritual life was pathetic and she had nothing to offer Moses and gave him no reason to record another word about her. How sad that she became this small in his eyes. His children, and probably her, remained with Moses, as they and their descendants are mentioned in I Chron. 23:15–17.

Introduction: Chapter 19 is a preparatory chapter. The Israelites are about to receive the Law and chapter 19 prepares them for this. In today's Christian community, one of the things which is almost ignored entirely is preparation; some pastors might be prepared in a seminary for four years, which is barely enough time to get your feet wet (unless you have a good spiritual background prior to) and a few others of the clergy are prepared in the same way. Some just get saved and go out and start preaching the next day. Some even start churches this way. Preparation is for all Christians—there is no distinction between clergy and non-clergy when it comes to God's plan, our spiritual growth, our rewards. Spiritual training should begin for children in infancy and be continued throughout their lives at home. Those who are saved later in life need to be daily prepared with God's Word. We are bombarded every day, for 16–18 hours a day, with human viewpoint and Satanic propaganda. We see it on TV, in advertising of all sorts, in the movies, we hear it on the radio, we hear it from every person that we come in contact with. When someone becomes a Christian, it is Satan's strategy to neutralize that person and we are neutralized in our minds. So we need that little hour a day of God's viewpoint taught by a pastor-teacher verse by verse, line upon line, precept by precept. We need to hear the Bible exegeted with references back to the culture and history of that time period, with a view to the original languages and the idioms of the day so that we may apprehend fully what God's Word says; and we need to hear certain doctrines, concepts and words eexplored categorically. Most believers ought to keep their conversion a secret for the first five years of their salvation so that they can grow and become prepared for God's purpose in our lives. If you do not follow God's plan for your life which is apprehended in one way and one way only—through His Word—then you will spend the rest of your life miserable due to self-induced misery and due to discipline direct from God.

Second, it is in this chapter that we have the purpose of Israel stated, although many commentators miss it entirely. In case you never knew what it was, or you think that you know, but you are not certain, then stay tuned—that will be covered also.

At the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone forth out of the land of Egypt—on this day, they came into the desert of Sinai. [Ex. 19:1]

To be honest, I am unsure as to the exact date here. It don't know whether this is the beginning, middle or end of the third month. However, the Jews have been traveling for at least 60 days. Furthermore, they will remain at the foot of Mount Sinai for almost a year (Num. 10:11–12). In fact, the children of Israel will be camped at the foot of this mountain through the end of Exodus, through all of Leviticus and the first 9+ chapters of Numbers.

We do not know the exact location of Mount Sinai. What Christians historians do is take out a map of the area, look at how long it might take to go from point A to point B and make reasonable guesses as to what route was traveled by the children of Israel. Most maps agree that they are in the Sinai Peninsula, between the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba, a little over a hundred miles from the Red Sea in a valley at the foot of what today is Mt. Horeb.

And when they set out from Rephidim and came into the desert of Sinai, they camped in the desert and there Israel camped before the mountains. [Ex. 19:2]

God is leading them as a cloud and they are going in almost the opposite direction from the land of Canaan. Moses had traveled part of this area between Midian and Egypt; however, no one else in the group, other than possibly some of their converts, had ever traveled from Egypt to Canaan. God did not take them directly to the promised land because this generation was too degenerate to take the land God promised to the Israelites.

And Moses went up to God and Yahweh called Him from out of the moutain saying, "Thus you will say to the house of Jacob and tell the people of Israel: [Ex. 19:3]

God begins with the adverb kôh (הֹ) [pronounced ko], which means like this, here, in this manner, thus, here, hither. I don't think this is too damaging to translate this as this is what you will say to the houe of Jacob and tell the people of Israel. When emphasis is needed, the way this is done is to say the same thing twice, but in slightly different ways. That is what is done here.

"'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you on wings of eagles and brought you to Myself. [Ex. 19:4]

God is omniscient, but for our benefit, He will manifest Himself in a finite area; here that place is Mount Sinai. He reminds the Jews (this will be spoken by Moses to the sons of Israel) of what has occurred so far. The Jews were short-sighted and required reminding. God will continue to remind them of being delivered out of the land of the Egyptians.

"'Now, therefore, if in hearing you obey My voice and keep my covenant; you will be My own possession among all peoples for all the earth is mine. [Ex. 19:5]

We have the word shâma‛ (ע ַמ ָש) [pronounced shaw-MAH] used twice. It means simply to hear. However, several things can be implied: to listen with interest; to listen and understand, to listen and consent, agree and obey. It first occurs in the Qal imperfect construct, which either acts as a verbal noun or, when the verb is found twice, it acts to intensify the meaning. Then it is found in the Qal imperfect, 2nd person masculine singular. To give you an idea how some translators render this phrase:

Also, prior to voice, we have preposition to, found only in The Emphasized Bible. The additional use of shâma‛ strengthens the word hear to mean hear and obey.

What Israel is called is çegullâh (ה ָ ֻג ׃ס) [pronounced seg-ool-LAW]; and this is found in a half-dozen places in the Bible. We have to be careful here; words change their meaning. This word does mean a peculiar treasure, but primarily later in the history of Israel (I Chron. 29:3 Ecc. 2:8 Mal. 3:17). However, early on, this word means valued property, peculiar people, prized possession. Israel is called God's own possession; God has set Israel apart from all of the other nations on the earth. God did not come to the Egyptians, to the Canaanites, to any other people or civilization; He came just to the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In His perfect plan, He knew of Abraham's great faith (not fully demonstrated until age 99), He knew of the Israelites how they would turn to Him and turn from Him; how some would be great heroes of the faith and how the majority of them would be losers. God knew exactly how they would react to His plan and direction. He chose Israel from all the nations, but it is important to understand that God is not just a local God, but He is the ruler of all the earth; the creator of man and the creator of the universe.

"'And you will be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation'; these are the words which you will speak to the children of Israel." [Ex. 19:6]

Here is the purpose of Israel. It is covered by this word priest. We have already studied the priesthood, but to sum up: a priest is a man who represents man to God. Man cannot go directly to God because he is unclean; he is born with Adam's imputed sin, he has an old sin nature and he has commited personal sins. God is holy, just and good—God cannot have contact with sin or fellowship with fallen man. Therefore, there must be someone who stands between God and man—a mediator—one who can stand before God and bring before Him the people. Throughout the Old Testament, this is a major concern. Moses must stand between God and the people. God does not speak directly to the Israelites but primarily to Moses who then speaks to the people. The logistics here are more difficult because God could make Himself heard to each and every Israelite and say things just one time. However, Israel must recognize that there must be someone who stands between them and God.

When it comes to offering sacrifices for men who have stumbled and sacrifices which speak of our Lord's work on the cross—these are all offered by a priest to God. The children of Israel did not offer their own sacrifices in the Levitical system. We will find out that Priest to stand between man and God—to represent man to God is Jesus Christ, our High Priest. When God the Father looks at man, He sees Jesus Christ and His having satisfied the requirements of the Law and having paid for our sins in His own body on the cross. We are in Christ and in Him we are pure and able to come to God.

Similarly, just as an Israelite has a go-between to get to God, the nations of the earth will have a go-between to get to God. Prior to the birth of our Lord, those who wanted salvation could not pray to their own local gods in sincerity and have it—they had to go through Israel. Israel was a priest nation to God; a nation through whom all other nations could come for salvation. The things which God did for Israel were known throughout the ancient world (e.g., the Israelites and the exodus, the Queen of Sheba coming to Solomon because of his wisdom; Rahab the prostitute in Joshua) and the dealings that God had with other nations through Israel were well known (e.g., Jonah and the Assyrians). This did not mean that a person had to become a Jew in order to be saved (although many did just as some Christians will move 2000 miles to hear God's Word taught correctly face-to-face). But the other nations recognized, in times of lucidity, that the God of the Universe was the God of Israel and that they must believe in that God for salvation. Israel, having the Law and the prophets, acted as a go-between for these other heathen nations. The degenerate, heathen nations went through Israel, whom God had sanctified unto Himself (you will be My own possession) to come to Him. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Israel's purpose as a nation—to represent God to the world. She had other functions as well—the writing, preservation and dissemination of God's Word. There are few functions in life which are nearly so important as these.

Tthe entire concept of a priest is a shadow of the things to come. Jesus Christ represents us as depraved sinners to God; it is only through Him that we have representation before God and a bridge to God. Today, all believers act as priests. We can represent ourselves to God and we represent God to others. You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession that you may proclaim the virtues of Him Who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light (I Peter 2:9). Since then we have a great High Priest, Who has passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, then let us hold onto our confession; for we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weakness, but one who has been tempted inall things as we, [yet] without sin. Let us therefore draw with great confidence near to the thron of grace that we may receive mercy and we may find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:14–16). Because we represent Jessu Christ to an unsaved world, we ought to be careful about who we tell that we are Christians. Some of us with our behavior and ignorance put people off with our phoniness and hypocrisy. Now I certainly know the Scripture: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp and place it under the peck-measure, but [they place it] on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father Who is in heaven" (Matt. 5:14–16). My point is, make certain that you actually have some light before you go off shining. That requires spiritual growth.

So Moses came and called to the elders of the people and set before them all these words which Yahweh had enjoined him. [Ex. 19:7]

There is no way that Moses can speak to 2,000,000 people, so he speaks to the elders and they will in turn address the people in town meetings, if you will. In this verse we have the 3rd person masculine singular, Piel perfect, 3rd masculine singular suffix of tsâvâh (ה ָו ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-VAW] which means to charge, to command. There were no imperatives in God's words to Moses so command, the choice of most translators here, is not the best of translations. Charge is a marvelous translation, but it is anachronistic. A young person (and even an older person) when seeing the English word charge will think of a dozen different meanings before lighting upon the correct one. This is where my Roget's Thesaurus comes in handy (which is far superior to any computerized thesaurus) and we could go with admonish, exhort, enjoin, stipulate, require, impose, decreed, ordain, prescribe. Several of these choices would require the addition of a preposition to smooth out the meaning: imposed upon him, prescribed to him, ordained to him, decreed for him, required of him, etc.

And all the people answered and said together, "All that Yahweh has spoken we will do." So Moses reported the words of the people to Yahweh. [Ex. 19:8]

God often gets our approval or ratification of His laws; not because it makes them any more right, but because what we say stands as a witness against us (or for us). This is the reasonable answer of the people to Moses; this will not be characteristic, however, of their dedication to God's Word.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "I am coming to you in a thick cloud that the people may hear when I speak with you; and also [so that] they may believe you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to Yahweh. [Ex. 19:9]

Moses is about to record the famous Law; when God speaks of the Israelites believing Moses forever, He is not referring to their lives then and later in their resurrection bodies (although that is certainly in view) but God is referring to all Jews throughout their succeeding generations to the end of time. Moses will be recording God's Word so it is important that this be believed forever.

There are some who believe that v. 9 indicates that the Israelites heard God speak the ten commandments to Moses. I am of the other school of thought at this time. There have been too many verses where Moses goes up the mountain, then comes down the mountain to speak to the people; then he goes back up with Aaron. I believe that when God summoned Moses to come up in v. 20; along with all the noise of the storm, that the people hard these things. However, I do not believe that they heard all the laws that God gave to Moses, including the ten commandments. If that were the case, there would have been no reason for him to go up the mountain out of their sight in the first place.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow and they will wash their garments. [Ex. 19:10]

Consecrate is the word Qâdash (ש ַד ָק) [pronounced kaw-DASH] and it is in the 2nd person singular, Piel perfect, 3rd person masculine plural suffix and it means to set apart as holy unto God, to consecrate [by purification], to honor as sacred. When relating to God, the people must be purified; they must be clean. God in perfect righteousness cannot come into contact with unrighteousness. This is all ceremonial, but this is what it means. One of the themes that we find in giving the law is that no unclean thing shall come into contact with any clean thing; this is a shadow to explain that God's perfect righteousness cannot come into contact with man's unrighteousness. Cleansing oneself prior to worshipping the true God was known probably in the earliest time; although we do not have our recording of this until Gen. 35:2–3: So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, "Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselve and change your garments. Then we will arise and go up to Bethel and I will make an altar ther to God." Today, the corresponding Scripture is for us to rebound (name our sins to God) prior to taking in God's Word; it is in this way that we are cleansed from all unrighteousness. Therefore, putting aside all wickedness, in humility receive the implanted word which is able to deliver your souls (James 1:21). If we confess our sins then He is faithful and just to forgive us sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (I John 1:9). Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full confidence in doctrine, having our hearts sprinkled (or, washed) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Heb. 10:22). He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have don in righteousness, but according to His mercy by the washing of regeneration and the renewing by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). See also I Cor. 6:11 Eph. 5:26 Heb. 9:10 I Peter 3:21 (properly exegeted in context). Today, physically cleansing oneself and one's clothes and using deodorant prior to going to church is a matter of good manners to keep from being a distraction to those around you. Beyond good manners, it has no spiritual significance (unless, of course, you clean yourself while filled with the Holy Spirit).

Satan certainly had his counterfeit to this. Pagan rituals also required the cleaning of one's clothes prior to entering into a pagan temple. If they were wearing a dirty cloth, then they had to put on a clean one, or stop and clean that one themselves before entering into their temple, according to Freeman who quoted from Roberts' Oriental Illustrations.

"...and be ready by the third day for on the third day Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people upon Mount Sinai. [Ex. 19:11]

There are certain recurring themes throughout the Bible. One of them is the third day. Jonah was three days and three nights in the great fish; Jesus Christ was three days in the grave (although His spirit was with God the father and His soul preached to the spirits in prison). The three days gave His disciples time to ponder what had occurred, as only John and the women seemed to have a clue. This gives the children of Israel the same time for introspection to reflect upon what these various rites mean.

"And yo will set bounds for the people round about, saying, 'Take care with regard to you [not] to go up into the mountain or [not] to touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain will be put to death. [Ex. 19:12]

The verb is the 2nd masculine plural, Niphal imperative of shâmar (ר ַמ ָש) [pronounced shaw-MAR] and in the simple Qal stem it means keep, guard, watch, preserve. In the Niphal, it means to take heed, be one one's guard, take care not to; even though there is no negative in this verse, and the Niphal is passive in meaning, not reflexive, BDB reasons that it could mean keep onself, refrain, abstain which is the clear use here, as well as in Gen. 31:29 I Sam. 21:5. I have translated this perhaps more literally than I should have and the meaning gets lost in the literality. Going up is the Qal infinitive construct of ‛âlâh (ה ָל ָע) [pronounced aw-LAW] and it means to ascent. The infinitive construct is generally a verbal noun; here it means to ascend, to go up. We also have the Qal infinitve construct of nâga‛ (ע ַג ָנ) [pronounced naw-GAH] and that means to touch, to reach, to strike.

One of the most common figures of speech in the Old Testament is the polyptoton [pronounced po-LIP-tō-ton], which is the repetition of the same part of speech in different inflections. In this case, it is the same verb found twice, but in a different tense. The word is mûwth (תמ) [pronounced mooth] and it means die. It is found first in the Qal infinitive absolute and then in the 3rd masculine singular, Hophal (the passive causative) imperfect. Literally, this would be translated, in dying, he will be caused to be put to death. You likely recall a similar construction in Gen. 2:17 (which used different verb forms of the same word). In this case, it emphasizes the severtiy of the punishment and is often translated, he will certainly [or, surely] but put to death.

God continually sets up a clear delineation between that which is holy and that which is profane. God cannot under any circumstance compromise His perfect righteousness. There can be no fellowship between light and darkness. All religions set up a relationship between a so-called holy God and sinful man. There can be no such relationship; there can be no such union. We cannot go into heaven, into God's presence in our filth. It is only human arrogance which makes us believe that there is something that we can do which is good enough for God. All our righteousnesses are as menstrous rags in His sight (Isa. 64:6b). There is none righteous—not even one (Psalm 14:1b Rom. 3:10 ). For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men—the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5). How can we be so arrogant to think that our piddling good deeds and our smiley faces and our pleasant attitude is good enough to win God's approval. There is no fellowship between the clean and the unclean. What partnership has righteousness and lawlessness; or what fellowship has light with darkness? (II Cor. 6:14b). God is light and in Him ther is no darkness at all (I John 1:5b). Consecrate the house of the Lord, the God of your fathers and carry the uncleanness out from the holy place (II Chron. 29:5b).

When you do not grasp the significance of the Scriptures, when you do not realize that they are a shadow of the good things to come, putting someone to death for touching a mountain seems rather severe. However, this is God's clear, unadulterated Word setting up the clear delineation between that which is sacred and that which is profane; and God will not allow the two to mix, not even in shadow form.

No hand shall touch him but he [who does touch it] in stoning will be stoned [or, will of a certainty be stoned] or shot whether beast or man, he will not live. When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they will come up to the mountain. [Ex. 19:13]

Again we have the Qal infinitive absolute of the word stoned along with the Niphal imperfect of the same word. The verb yârâh (ה ָר ָי) [pronounced yaw-RAW] can mean several things: throw, shot [with an arrow], cast or rain. Here, in the context of execution, it means to shoot with an arrow. God will not even strike these people dead Himself—He will expect the congregation of Israel to do that. This means that God is deadly serious when it comes to the separation between that which is holy and that which is profane. When we have the trumpet blast, then they will ascend the mountain. When they are clean (they have spent 3 days in ceremonial cleansing), then they will be allowed, in God's time, when the trumpet sounds, to go up the moutain. Do you see the parallel? For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall all be changed (I Cor. 15:52b). For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ will rise first (I Thess. 4:16). Here is a simple rule of interpretation: when you find an Old Testament passage with a penalty which seems far too strict for the transgression involved, then look for the parallel between it and an important doctrine from the New Testament—it will be there.

So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people and they washed their garments. [Ex. 19:14]

This is the ceremonial cleaning which Moses takes the people through. We cannot understand the gospel or any other spiritual information unless God the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. This is something that I can only describe from personal experience. I do believe in clearly presenting the gospel; however, the first time that I recall hearing the gospel (which I may have heard it before and I might have even already been saved) it was the most garbled mess that you have ever heard. I knew one thing and that there was a decision to be made; although I did not have a clue as to what that decision was. That is because there was a Christian filled with the Spirit witnessing to me and God the Holy Spirit made that real to me. These Jews and others who read this material or who know of these rituals are witnessed to by means of these rituals. Satan did not know what they all meant in the Old Testament—not as fully as we do now. He did not even know that there was going to be a cross because even though Satan is the greatest student of the Old Testament during New Testament times, he did not anticipate what was going to occur on the cross. This was unknown to him in all his great intelligence because that is spiritual information which is spiritually understood; this is why millions of people in the Old Testament were saved through hearing the gospel in one way or another, yet Satan did not know what exactly was going on. He saw the rituals, he read about the rituals, he studied the reituals and he counterfeited the rituals, but it was never clear to him what they all meant until after the cross. However, thousands of years before he knew, one person right after another was saved through hearing the gospel, often through ritual, where God the Holy Spirit made it real to them and they believed and trusted in Yahweh Elohim, Jesus Christ.

And he said to the people, "Be ready by the third day. Do not go near a woman." [Ex. 19:15]

Symbolically, men were about to be joined to God so this precluded their joining with women. It again was a symbolic gesture of purity and being joined to Jesus Christ.

So it came to pass on the third day in the morning, there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud [fell] upon the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast so that all the people who were in the camp trembled. [Ex. 19:16]

Qôwl (ל ק) [pronounced kole] generally means sound, voice; however, in this context, it means thunderings. The thunder and lightning and the dark cloud all speak of judgement. Jesus Christ was judged under a thick cloud of darkness so that we could not see it occurring. Even the boldest of people have some sin, some shortcoming that they would be embarrassed to have other people observe them do. Much, much worse than this is the idea of a perfect Jesus Christ coming in contact with the penalty for our sins; the degradation and the pain and the suffering which He endured on our behalf; so that He was covered with thick darkness.

Then Moses brought out the people out of the camp to meet God and they took their stand at the foot [lit., lower portion] of the mountain. [Ex. 19:17]

Moses here acts as a mediator between man and God. God must go through a man and this is why Moses and Aaron both appearing before Pharaoh was not God's choice—it destroyed the analogy of just one man standing in the gap between man and God. In that case, it was the analogy of Jesus Christ the prophet, speaking God's Word to man. Here Moses is the prophet and the priest; reprsenting man to God and God to man—he alone stood in the gap between them just as Christ alone stands in the gap between us and a holy God. It is only when we are purified in Him and by Him

that we can stand before God.

And Mount Sinai was wrapped—all of it—in smoke because Yahweh descended upon it in fire and the smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln and the whole mountain quaked greatly. [Ex. 19:18]

In our society, people who have never even seen California or Japan know what an earthquake is. That is because of the kind of world that we live in. We have newspapers, television reports and magazines, all which deal with the phenomena of earthquakes. For Israel, an earthquake would be a very rare event; something that many Israelites would not even know about. Therefore, their vocabulary does not have a specific word for the quaking of a mountain. The word is chârad (ד ַר ָח) [pronounced khaw-RAD], and it means tremble, shake. This describes what the mountain did. This figure of speech—giving an inanimate object an action or an emotion normally attributed to animate objects—is called personification.

The fire here speaks of judgement in the Bible and smoke of propitiation to God. The people had been ceremonially cleansed, allowing God to be propitious toward them. God would judge our Lord in our stead, and this is the true basis for God being able to be propitious toward us. God's presence caused the great geological disturbance because of the strength of His presence.

Early liberals, struggling with God's ability to perform miracles, did at one time attribute this to the natural phenomena of volcanic activity. Other liberals have pointed out that there are no traces of volcanic activity on the Sinai Peninsula, so another explanation which has been given (by Barthel) is that Moses somehow invented or discovered gun powder and set off a few charges to get everyone's attention. When you don't have any real faith in God, there are not a lot of alternatives. This is one thing that I don't get—but then I have never really spoken to any Christian liberals on this topic—who or what is their god? He is like the wizard of Oz? Or have they arbitrarily decided that He has chosen not to ever work in miraculous ways, contrary to Scripture? Maybe I am wrong on this point, but it seems to me that because they have never witnessed a spectacular miracle (or something which they could identify as a miracle) they have concluded that miracles, therefore, have never occurred.

And as the sound of the trumpet coming and growing louder exceedingly, Moses spoke and God answered him with a voice. [Ex. 19:19]

To explain the difference between the way I have translated v. 19 and the way others have (Owen and the NASB both translated the one phrase as the sound of the trumpet growing louder and louder): there are two verbs here, not two adverbs. The first is the Qal active participle of hâlak^e (׃ךַל ָה) [pronounced haw-LAK], which means to come, to go, to walk; and the second is the Qal active participle of châzaq (ק ַז ָח) [pronounced chaw-ZAK] which means to become strong, to prevail over, to hold firmly to, to grow strong. The two words together are poetic; they are followed by the adverb m^e’ôd (דֹא ׃מ) [pronounced meh-ODE] and it means muchness, force, abundance, exceedingly. The word that some translate thunder again is the word sound or voice; and translating it here as thunder is more a matter of interpretation rather than translation. I agree with Rotherham that this indicates that the ten commandments were given verbally (yet privately to Moses).

And Yahweh came down upon Mount Sinai to the top of the mountain. And Yahweh called Moses to the top of the mountain and Moses went up. [Ex. 19:20]

God needed for Israel to understand the gravity of the situation; to understand His might and power. God required that man feared and respected him (something that we lack today). Had there just been a clear day with perhaps a rainbow and a garden of flowers and birds singing nice things in the background, then the Jews would not grasp how momentous this event was; nor would they have developed the proper respect for God. The Jews had to be close enough to hear God call Moses up to the top of the mountain, but they would not hear the actual transmission of the Law.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Go down—warn the people so that they do not break through to Yahweh to gaze and many of them perish." [Ex. 19:21]

The word translated warn is actually the Hiphil imperative of ‛ûwd (ד ע) [pronounced ood] and it means bear witness, testify; in the Hiphil according to BDB, it can mean protest, affirm solemnly, warn.

A personal note in the realm of linguistics: I have never liked the word lest; because it is Old English and not used in today's English, I believe that it needs to be replaced. However, it is the perfect, one-word translation of the conjunction pên (ן ∵) [pronounced pen] and it simply means lest; and when the translator was feeling particularly robust, he would translate this word lest...peradventure. However, we can get by with splitting it into that...not.

Moses has climbed to the top of the mountain and with all of the thundering and lightening, and the trumpet blasts from above, there are still some people who have decided they want to climb up this mountain to view God. We have something which is analogous to the high priest entering the holy of holies; Moses is the high priest and on the mountain, he is in the presence of God, within the inner veil. They people are outside and are not allowed to come into the holy of holies because their cleansing is ceremonial but not real. Just as Jesus Christ only could go to the Father, having given His life for our sins. Just as there are people today who are so arrogant as to think they can come to God with their puny and filthy good deeds; there were Israelites who thought they could follow Moses up the mountain and come into God's presence. Their true uncleaness in the presence of God's perfection would have caused them to die. So Moses had to head back down the mountain to warn the people; because God was not willing that any should perish.

"And also the priests who come near to Yahweh; let them consecrate themselves so that Yahweh does not break out [in sudden judgement] upon them." [Ex. 19:22]

The priests were not necessarily the family of Levi at this time (recall that Moses father-in-law, not even a Jew, was a priest in Midian) and although they were not coming up the moutain either; they had to be particularly careful about being ceremonially cleansed.

And Moses aid to Yahweh, "The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai for You Yourself have reiterated to us saying, 'Set bounds about the mountain and consecrate it.'" [Ex. 19:23]

What God did was the Hiphil perfect of ‛ûwd (דע) [pronounced ood] and it comes from the unused root to repeat and it means testify, bear witness, reaffirm, reiterate. Moses reminds God the He had told them over and over to cleanse themselves and not to come up the mountain. Moses was assuming that a few clear, simple directives are all that are needed to keep the Jews in line.

And Yahweh said to him, "Go; descend; and come up—you and Aaron with you; however, the priests and the peple do not let break through to come up to Yahweh, so that he does not break out against them." [Ex. 19:24]

In the beginning of the quote of Yahweh, there are three verbs and not two (as it is usually translated). I have given you the more literal translation. Not much is lost in the other way of rendering this quote.

A word used twice, here and in v. 22, has been pârats (ץ ַר ָ) [pronounced paw-RATS] and it means break through, burst out, break in pieces, break out violently in swift judgement; it is in the latter sense that this is used (see also II Sam. 5:20 I Chron. 14:11 15:13 Psalm 60:3 106:29). When used of the people, it is a different word altogether in this verse: the Qal imperfect of hâraç (ס ַר ָה) [pronounced haw-RAS] and it means pull down, break in pieces, destroy. There is a barrier between God and man and the people are not to break down that barrier.

When Moses has trouble following directions; God brings Aaron into the picture. Aaron will represent the manward side of Jesus Christ and Moses the God-ward side of Jesus Christ.

Introduction: Chapter 20 is the giving of the famous Ten Commandments, the decalogue, the freedom code. As Thieme points out, there are people who have never picked up a Bible before and have never read even a portion of the Bible who could name at least five of the Ten Commandments. They are not called the Ten Commandments until Ex. 34:28 (see also Deut. 10:4). There is that minor disagreement which looms as to whether the people heard God give Moses the Ten Commandments or not. Vv. 18–19 are not completely decisive. If it is given in chronological order, then it would imply that the people heard the ten commandments and that was all they could bear. If this was given as a reaction of the people in general, not falling directly into this time frame, then all they heard and saw were the thunder, and lightening and quaking.

The commandments given by God cover three basic categories: our relationship with God, the Sabbath, and our relationship with people. The first category identifies to Whom our allegiance is due and why. Even though this is the Law, given specifically to the Jews and not to the Gentiles nor was it given to the church, the mandates herein stated, with the exception of one, remain in effect for all time. In fact, most of these commandments, particularly those dealing with people, are strengthened in the New Testament. The commandment which is no longer in effect is the mandate to keep the Sabbath. This was to teach the Jews that they could do nothing for salvation. God had provided for their every need in eternity past and they were to reflect upon that for their day of rest. The fact that we can do nothing and that God has done everything on our behalf is one of the central themes of the Bible from the Old Testament through the New Testament. The Sabbath was analogous to salvation—entering into God's rest by believing in Jesus Christ, but we will cover more about that when we get to v. 8.

We do not know the exact setting of this. In v. 24 of the previous chapter, Moses was sent back down the mountain to warn the people; but he was told to come back up. In v. 25 he warns the people, but there is no mentioning of his return ascent up the mountain. Speaking is in the Piel imperfect; the intensive stem because of the gravity of the situation.

The Ten Commandments were originally given orally by God to Moses. These will later be followed by judgements—that is, specific offense of the law will be given along with judgements (or the punishments) of the same in Ex. 21:1–23:13. They are not written on the tablets of stone at this time but rather in a few chapters by the finger of God. Whether all the laws up until that time were thereon recorded or whether it was just the ten commandments; we don't know. These first tablets are those which are broken into pieces when Moses returns to find the children of Israel practicing idolatry in his absence.

"I [am] Yahweh, your God Who brought you out—out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage [lit., slaves]. [Ex. 20:2]

A portion of this verse is very difficult to translate literally. Brought out is in the 1st person singular, Hiphil perfect, 2nd person masculine singular suffix. This portion of the verse reads I caused you (singular) to be brought out. You may be thinking that was easy to translate. However, prior to this verb we have the relative pronoun ’ăsher (ר ∵שְַא) [pronounced ash-ER]. Actually, calling it a relative pronoun is a bit simplistic. It is indeclinable and although we understand it in English to be in the 3rd person, in the Hebrew it can be in any person depending upon the context (here it is in the 1st person because the verb is in the 1st person). So we might translate this: "I [am] Yahweh, your God; concerning Whom [or, I am the One Whom], I caused you to be brought out—out of the land of Egypt." When we aim for a literal translation, then we end up introducing a number of extra words to smooth out the translation and to give the full impact of the individual Hebrew words. The so-called relative pronoun ’ăsher alone takes up almost three pages of explanation in BDB and has eight basic definitions. Another option, which is reasonable, is to leave this word out altogether. It is a sign of relation or a connecting link and that connection can be implied as well as stated. So we could reasonably translate this verse: "I, Yahweh, your God—I caused you to be brought out—out of the land of Egypt."

God has to remind the Israelites on a regular basis that it was He Who brought them out of the land of Egypt. You think that seeing all of those miracles up close would have had a permanent affect on these people; not true. As we will see, this is the whiniest group of ninnies that you'll ever see. There are maybe a half dozen men who will spiritually amount to anything and 2,000,000 who are mixed up beyond belief.

One point brought out by Thieme, which I have not seen anyone else do prior to his time, it bring out the relationship between the decalogue and freedom. Prior to even giving the Ten Commandments, God ties them directly to Himself and ties them directly to the freeing of the Israelites from the bondage to Egypt. This is the beginning of Jewish freedom and the first thing that they hear under freedom is the Ten Commandments. A nation which operates under the framework of the Ten Commandments is a nation which is free. These commandments protect the volition, the property and the relationships between people so that each person can have a maximum amount of freedom without infringing upon the freedom of another individual. See the doctrine of Human Freedom—not finished yet!!

Right here we need to examine the basic doctrine of the Law; and the basic doctrine of the Ten Commandments—neither one is finished yet!

In general, the Ten Commandments is a mixture of spiritual, moral and legal laws. Relationship to God is covered in the first four commandments and relationship to man is covered rest. Our personal relationship with other men and property rights are covered in the last six commandments. These are not specific laws but general principles designed for the nation Israel. The Ten Commandments are a framework upon which is based the other 600+ laws given us throughout the Pentateuch. These more than 600 laws which are found in the Law of Moses may be condensed to these Ten Commandments and the Ten Commandments may be summarized as our Lord did: "You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it, You will love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matt. 22:35–40). A perfect man would have perfect love toward God and toward man. Knowing this, how could any man with some shred of personal honesty claim to keep the Law? I look at these two simple commands and I immediately recognize my need for a Savior.

The Ten Commandments have real significant spiritual value today (such as you will have no other gods before Me; such as the implications and applications of you will not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth); and some are absolutely necessary for a lawful society (You will not murder; you will not steal). Some portions of the law are strictly our moral duty toward our fellow man (You will not commit adultery; you will not covet); our moral duty toward God (you will not use the Lord's name in emptiness).

The Jews are given a rationale for the first three commandments. Yahweh delivered them from slavery and has promised them from the time of Abraham (but actually from eternity past) the land of Canaan, a land flowing with milk and honey. We have the additional rationale that there is no other God; those worshipped as gods are demons; not God. We know...that there is no God but One (I Cor. 8:4b).

I realize tht this translation does not match the intensity of Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This verse begins with the negative lô’ (אֹל) [pronounced lo] and the 3rd person masculine singular of the Qal imperfect of hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] and it means to be, to come to pass. The subject is not the 2nd person singular or plural; it is the third person singular; therefore, this should be translated, there will be no. This is followed by the lamed preposition which means to, for, in regard to. This preposition has as its object the 2nd person singular masculine suffix; therefore it means to you, for you, in regards to you. The word for God is Elohim; so this could be translated singularly or as a plural. The general rule for all translations is that if this word speaks of the Godhead; then it is capitalized and rendered as being singular; if it refers to some pagan god or gods, it is given in the plural, generally, with the lower case g. However, in any case it is the exact same word. This verse terminates with the preposition ‛al (ל ַע) [pronounced al] and it means upon, above, beyond, over, in addition to. There are no gods above and beyond our Lord, so we should have no God in addition to Yahweh. Translating this preposition before seems to leave the door open to having a secondary god to worship below Yahweh. Therefore, I prefer the translation besides or in addition to. There is no other God other than the triune God, spoken of as one in essence, yet three in person. This is appended by the 1st person, singular suffix, from whence we get Me.

For every one of the Ten Commandments, save one, there is a corresponding commandment in the New Testament. We have already looked at I Cor. 8:4. This passage goes on to say, For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords [the many gods refers to demons and demon royalty and the many lords refers to human celebrityship and royalty], yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him (I Cor. 8:5–6). If you would like something stronger, then I Cor. 10:21: You cannot drink from the cup of the Lord and the dup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

"You will not make for yourselves a carved (or sculpted) image or any likeness that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. [Ex. 20:4]

V. 4 begins the commandment against idolatry. There is a great, vast reality far beyond what our five senses perceive. It is a realm occupied by our triune God, by angels and by demons. We are not to create anything with our hands which represents these things in the regions beyond sight and sound.

Many people in hearing this verse just zip right by it without a thought. They have not built any idols lately, they don't even worship Satan, so they feel as though everything is fine here. However, the idols which we create today are of a subtler nature. For some it is wealth and fame; for others position and power; for others it is recognition and admiration; for others it is the accumulation of material things; for others, it is the accumulation of status symbols. Some people build their entire lives around striving for these various idols, attempting to attain them, being envious of those who have them. This is idolatry. An idol is in the soul. You do not have to have a Buddha statue in your house in order to be an idolator. All you have to do is to put something else ahead of God—that is the essence of idolatry. When that thing placed ahead of God has some religious significance, then it is all the more damnable. Furthermore, there is but one way to know God and that is through His Word. Any person, no matter how religious and how nice and how soft spoken they are, if they do not want to know God's Word, then they do not want to know God and they are idolators.

For those who reject God, you automatically by definition are in soul idolatry. You either worship things, possessions, culture, yourself, your intelligence, science, the position of man on this earth—you have something that you do obeisance to. Most often, it is self-worship and faith in your own abilities and your own mind. I recall an atheist who still studied religions to find the good that was in them; he did not see that as a contradiction nor do I. He is arrogant enough to decide that he is able to pick and chose from what Satan has provided and determine which is important and which is not. Whereas I am loathed to make pop culture references, Bob Dylan wrote you gotta serve somebody. When you are in idolatry, you are in slavery. Recall, these commandments are the basis and the framework for true freedom. If you are idolatrous, whether overtly or in your soul, you are under slavery to Satan. See the Doctrine of Idolatry—not finished yet!!

"You will not bow down to them nor be enslaved to them [or, be caused to serve them], [Ex. 20:5a]

It is difficult to break these passages up without losing some meaning; however, this verse is going to require a lot of exegesis and explanation because several issues are raised here; therefore, even though the second commandment is comprised of vv. 4–6, I will have to break that up into several parts in order to cover it properly.

We begin v. 5 with the negative lô’ (אֹל) [pronounced lo] and the 2nd person singular, Hithpael imperfect of shâchach (ח ַח ָש) [pronounced shaw-KHAKH] and it comes from a root word meaning to sink, to depress. It means bow down, worship, prostrate oneself. The Hithpael stem is the intensive reflexive, meaning you will not bow yourself down or you will not prostrate yourself. The lâmed preposition means to and it is affixed to the 3rd person, masculine singular suffix (them).

This is followed by the waw conjunction (which we usually translate as and, but it can be translated in a number of different ways), the negative and the Hophel (causative passive) imperfect of ‛âbad (ד ַב ָע) [pronounced aw-BAD] and it means work, serve, enslave, labor. When your efforts are directed toward the acquisition of material things, toward making others think hightly of you, toward making a lot of money, toward making others jealous, toward sleeping with as many women as you can; then you are enslaved by these things; you are being caused to work for these things. Some women when they ask a man what their goals and hopes and dreams are, although this sounds very noble and meaningful, often means what salary range do you see yourself in ten years and what kind of material things do you want to possess? In the first verb, you are choosing to worship these things and the second verb means that they got their hooks into you and now you are trapped into serving them. This has a wide application to involvment in an apostate church to accumulation of material things. I have known several people who were involved with apostate churches; however, they got in early, received a lot of approbabtion, and were so high up in the organization that they ended up enslaved to that organization (I hesitate to use the word church in many cases). This can mean material things. Who has kown someone who has stretched their earnings to a point of social status which has turned around and ensalved that person to a job which they despise, but are enslaved to in order to maintain their level of material wealth. Who hasn't known a male lothario who began by find women attractive, but with each new conquest finds himself more and more enslaved to the pursuit of the female (yet, often enough, develops a deep-seated hatred of the woman). I knew one male that after a conquest, he confided to me that he couldn't wait for them to leave. Again, the progression here is that you choose to become an idolater and you are then enslaved to the idol.

"...because I, Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God, attending to the iniquity of the fathers beyond the children to the third generation and the fourth generation of those who hate me. [Ex. 20:5b]

Vv. 5b–6 give the rationale behind the second commandment and raise an issue which some theologians have trouble with but which is relatively simple in its concept. Let's cover the translation of the verse first. As most of us know, jealousy is a sin and God does not sin. This is an anthropopathism so that we have a clearer understanding of God's motivation. Just as a husband expects his wife to place no man before him and to sleep with no other man, God expects the same of us on a spiritual level. Spiritual faithfulness involves worshiping the one and true God and living in the Word.

Then we have the Qal active participle of pâqad (ד ַק ָ) [pronounced paw-KAD] and it means to attend to, to visit, to muster, to appoint. In this passage and several others, punishment is implied.

Translating the beginning of v. 6 will require some work. Cheçed (ד ∵ס ∵ח) [pronounced KHEH-sed] is a word which is alternately translated mercy and lovingkindness by the KJV. It means gracious, although the Jews did not understand the full impact of this word. See the Doctrine of Cheçed—the translation--not finished yet!! In the Old Testament we might view grace by the definition unmerited favor, because the Jews did not fully comprehend the reason behind God's graciousness and mercy and kindness toward them. In fact, many became exceedingly legalistic, not only in their attempt to follow the Law, but to improve upon it and embellish it, in order to receive grace from God. These legalists had no concept of God's grace. Those who did, like Moses, were grace-oriented men. They realized that their power and strength both lie with God; that God poured out lovingkindness to them far beyond what they could have ever earned or deserved. Since the cross, we have a better understanding of grace and the reason behind it. I don't know if I could improve upon Thieme's definition as all that God is free to do for us on the basis of the cross; that these acts of mercy and kindness is unmerited goes without saying; all the merit is to Christ's and what He did on our behalf on the cross.

The verb which precedes this is ‛âsâh (ה ָ ָע) [pronounced aw-SAW] which generally means do, make in the widest sense. It has a variety of applications, from being involved in creation (Gen. 1:7 3:1), in doing God's commandments and statutes (Deut. 16:12 30:8), in performing signs and miracles (Josh. 24:17). We could get away with either performing acts of graciousness or manufacturing grace in this verse. However, it might be useful to see how several other translators dealt with this portion of v. 6:

"...But manufacturing grace to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [Ex. 20:6]

Note that there are two things required to acquire God's grace: love toward Him and obedience. Christians do not automatically love God. A Christian who is someone who has believed in Jesus Christ. There are many bitter Christians. We know this from personal experience and from Scripture where there are many passages exhorting us not to be bitter. In salvation, we are redeemed by what Jesus Christ has done for us on the cross. Once we enter into our spiritual life, a myriad of things may cause us to be bitter, the primary reason being failure to grow spiritually, the secondary reasons might be failed loved relationship, failure in business or in our vacation, friends and relatives who disappoint us, etc. Love is toward God is not an automatic thing. Unsaved people do not love God. For the unsaved person reading or hearing this, you might take offense at this statement, but God's love is revealed by His sending His Son to die in our stead (John 3:16, 36). We respond to that love by believing in Him. If we reject the greatest gift that God has given us, the gift that God desires all man to take, then obviously we do not love the true God. Now, an unbeliever might love the god that he has manufactored in his own soul, but this is a god which he has created in his own image and this love is thinly veiled self-love and self-worship. And if it is any consolation, most believers do not love God. To love God is to love His Word and only a small percentage of believers love HIs Word. The only way we get to know God is through His Word; this is how He reveals His character to us after salvation. The man-woman analogy: you cannot truly be in love with a woman (or a man) whom you do not know. You may be terribly attracted to that person, but that is simple physical attraction at best, lust at worst. That is not love. Often you may see a wonderfully packaged product only to open it up and discover the gross filth inside. The only way you can ever love a person of the opposite sex is to know them and this is the only way we can love God. Thieme lists this as one of the characteristics of the mature Christian life. Notice that this is a step up from the Old Testament notion of fearing and rspecting God. The first indicates salvation or being on the brink of salvation.

This indicates spiritual growth after salvation. The second half of this is keeping, or guarding His commandments. When we grow spiritually, we begin to understand that what God requires of us is for our own good and for our own benefit. As we learn more about God and His Word we have a better understanding of what is right and wrong (the new Christian and the unbeliever barely even have a clue in this regard), we have a more earnest desire to fulfill His plan for our lives, and therefore have a tendency to be more obedient.

God's response is grace and more grace. As has been covered, we do not deserve this; however, God is under no obligation to pour out blessing and grace to overflowing upon those who have no appreciation for it. King David and King Saul both occupied the same throne and ruled over the same people. David repeatedly revealed a happy mental attitude and Saul became miserable in his position to the point of mental illness. It is a matter of capacity. If we have no capacity for blessing, then it doesn't matter what God gives us, it will not make us happy for a sustained period of time. Illustration: for a child's first birthday, he may wake up crabby and crying so you decide to give this child the keys to your new car and the deed to your house. Will that stop him from crying? Certainly not. He has no capacity for these things. On the adult level, there are many people who meet their right man or right woman and even marry them and they are unhappy. Why? They have no true capacity for love. They lie to the other person, they treat them badly, they cheat on them, they belittle them in public and in private—and they wonder why they are not happy with their mate. They do not have the capacity for love. Even the unbeliever can develop a limited capacity for right man-right woman love through following the laws of divine establishment (which is what we are embarking upon at this moment). The unbeliever who endeavors to follow God's Law, appart from salvation, if he avoids severe legalism, will have happiness far greater than the unbeliever who is a hedonist and chases after the very ellusive god, pleasure. They will both spend eternity in the lake of fire in regret, severe misery and pain—but in the very very short time that they spend upon this earth, the one who tries to follow God's Law, ignoring His greatest commandment

, will be happier during this life.

You will not lift up the name of Yahweh your God with regard to [or for] vanity [or, emptiness] because Yahweh will not acquit anyone [and He will not leave anyone unpunished] who lifts up His name in emptiness. [Ex. 20:7]

Although most of us think we have a grasp of what is being said here, let's exegete this verse somewhat. This verse begins with the negative and the 2nd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of nâsâ’ (א ָ ָנ) [pronounced naw-SAW] and it is another word similar to ‛âsâh insofar as it is a word with many varied applications. Its basic meaning is lift; it also means carry, take. It can refer to lifting up something in order to carry it away (Gen. 21:18 II Sam. 2:32), but it is used more figuratively of lifting up one's feet to walk away (Gen. 31:17 42:26); it is used to pick up something and lay it upon someone in a figurative sense when someone lays an oath upon someone else; this is, requires an oath of someone else (I KIngs 8:31). Here, when we say God's name, we are lifting it up before Him—we are calling upon Him when we use His name. Most translations say take His name in vain; which is fine, but the English concept of the word take here does not exactly correspond with the meaning of the word take as it applies to nâsâ’. The next word might help us: vain. Shâw^e’ (א ׃ו ָש) [pronounced shawv] and it means emptiness, vanity, nothingness. We are not to bring God's name to worthlessness. We are not to lift up the Lord's name with regard to that which is empty and meaningless.

There is a lot more in this verse than just taking God's name in vain. There is no excuse for a Christian to use our Lord's name lightly in vain chatter in profanity or to liven up a conversation. This is a poor testimoney to trivialize the name of the Lord Who bought you. But this goes further than that. The verb is not a direct reference to speaking. It is lifiting up or carrying or taking God's name for that which is empty and meaningless. Let's see if I can illustrate this? When you prayed for that new car, you blasphemed your Lord. When you asked God to give you something sinful or something which was wrong, you blasphemed the name of your Lord. When you ask for something merely to satisfy your lust pattern whether it be materialism lust, sexual lust, approbabtion lust, power lust—you have lifted up God's name with regards to emptiness. Whatever you do to lift up or bring His name (which also means His character and reputation) into a place of meaningless and emptiness, you have blasphemed the Lord Who died for your sins. God is not your best buddy who hangs with you and when you claim some special goofy relationship with Him, you trivialize God and He will hold you as guilty of sin and you need to rebound. You ask and you do not receive because you ask with wrong motivation so that you may squander [it] on your pleasure lusts (James 4:3). Furthermore, this includes taking some meaningless oath in God's name or swearing by God about something. This includes purgery where you have sworn that your testimoney would be true. Thieme lists several areas where God's name is taken into vanity: May God strike me dead, God is my witness (when you are about to lie about something), this is God's will.

To clear up the final portion of this verse, the verb found is the negative plus the Piel imperfect of nâqâh (ה ָק ָנ) [pronounced naw-KAWH] and it means cleanse, acquit, declare innocent, leave unpunished. God will not allow us to use His name in vain under any circumstance and go unpunished for it. This is our verse which gives us this promise.

To understand the extent to which the Jews became legalistic, they would not even pronounce the name of Yahweh without an entire procedure to preface it. This went beyond respect to horrible legalism. As a result of this, we do not know the exact pronunciation of God's Old Testament name. We have covered this; but to review, there is no J in the Hebrew language, which means that His name was not pronounced Jehovah. There were no vowel points in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament until well after the birth of our Lord, so, although we can work with the consonants of His holy name, we do not know what the vowels were and the resulting pronunciation Yahweh is at best an educated guess. God does have a name which is revealed to us in the New Testament and that is Jesus Christ. This is not way it was originally pronounced; that is our English pronunciation. Anyone in any language can believe in Jesus Christ as pronounced in their language and they are eternally saved. They key is not the pronunciation of His name but in the Word that He did on our behalf. When the Bible exhorts us to believe on the name of Jesus Christ, name means character, reputation. One cannot be saved apart from having a basic understanding of what Jesus Christ did on his behalf on the cross. Furthermore, the two names, Jesus (savior) and Christ (messiah), were rarely if ever put together until the New Testament epistles. Anytime a man was closely associated with being God, such a thing was considered blasphemous. Our Lord was continually accused of blasphemy because he exhibited the attributes of deity and took upon Himself certain aspects of deity (e.g., Jesus allowed Himself to be worshipped, He forgave sins). Even though most liberals and unbelievers refuse to see Jesus Christ as God come in the flesh (not just someone who acted very, very God-like), the religious unbelievers of His day fully recognized how He presented Himself and many times take up stones to stone Him for what they perceived as blasphemy because they did not recognize the Lord Who bought them.

"Remembering the day of the Sabbath, in regards to keeping it holy [or, with regards to consecration]: [Ex. 20:8]

The Ten Commandments, like the so-called Lord's prayer and the sermon on the mount, have been memorized or reread so many times in the King James Version that it is difficult to distance ourselves from it to attain a better understanding of what is here. This verse is not a command but a title of sorts. Remembering is in the Qal infinitive absolute, meaning that it is a verbal noun (although it can act as a noun, verb or adverb). The unfortunate neglect of prepositions has caused many scholars to overlook the lâmed preposition near the end of the verse, which means to, for, in regard to. Qâdash (ש ַד ָק) [pronounced kaw-DASH] is in the Piel infinitive construct, which is also a verbal noun which can be a noun, verb; it can take on prefixed prepositions, the article, and suffixes. It can be a subject, predicate, object of a preposition (which is what it is here). It means to set apart, to make holy, to consecrate, to dedicate. The examination of the word Sabbath will be reserved for later. We do not have a command in this verse; the injunction will follow in v. 10 (although, it will not be in the imperative).

Here is a verse pretty well translated correctly in any Bible. A rarity. I have made one slight improvement in the common translation. The verb labor is in the Qal imperfect, which means continuous action. You work throughout the week. The second verb is our friend ‛âsâh, which means do, make; but in the perfect tense, we are looking at a completed action, so I chose a synonym with that inference. In both cases, the verbs are in the 2nd person singular; so, like the rest of the commandments, these are addressed to each individual in Israel. However, the verbs in connection with this fourth commandment are not in the imperative. This is a figure of speech where the imperfect and perfect tense are used to examine our work from two different perspectives: the daily grind and the week finished; however, the imperative mood is implied because of the 2nd prson singular and the construction of the previous verses.

"However, the day which is seventh [is] a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. You will not do any work; [not] you or your son or your daughter, your manservant or your maidservant or your cattle or your visitor who is within your gates. [Ex. 20:10]

V. 9 reads six of days and v. 10 reads (literally) day of seventh. It is a matter of the numeral is in the construct in v. 9 and day is in the construct in v. 10. This grammatically sets the seventh day apart. In a nutshell, Sabbath is a transliteration; it comes from the verb which means rest, cease. It is Saturday and not Sunday and there was no official command in the New Testament to change the Sabbath to Sunday. However, there is no command in the New Testament to keep the Sabbath, Heb. not withstanding. See the Doctrine of the Sabbath--NOT finished yet!! (add the paragraphs below to this study). Also see the Doctrine of the Sabbaths—not finished yet!! and the doctrine of Sunday worship—not finished yet!!

In glancing through my NASB's topical concordance, I ran across two gross errors with respect to the sabbath: (1) The Sabbath is called the Lord's day (Rev. 1:10); (2) The Sabbath is to be perpetuated forever (Ex. 31:16–17 Matt. 5:17–18). A third error, perpetuated by the legalistic branches of so-called Christian religions, is saying that we are still under the Sabbath and Heb. 4:9 is quoted. (1) Rev. 1:10 has the designation the Lord's day and is not connected to the Sabbath in any way shape or form—the word Sabbath occurs nowhere in this context. (2) As we have seen, the Law was given specifically to the Jew; not to the Gentile and not to the church. Ex. 31:13 reads: "Speak to sons of Israel saying, 'You will definitely observe My Sabbaths...'" There were a number of different Sabbaths and kinds of Sabbaths; Saturday was the primary Sabbath, however. In vv. 16 & 17, again, notice the words "'So the sons of Israel will observe the Sabbath...as a perpetual covenant; it is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever.'" (3) Our system of numbering verse has been a blessing and a curse. It is marvelous for me to make a simple statement like "we are going to Heb. 10:9", and everyone can, given a few minutes, find this passage. On the negative side, a speaker or writer can casually quote this verse: There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God and many Christians are led astray by this. Every verse must be examined in context. Hebrews, first of all, is written to (now hold onto your seats) Hebrews. Therefore, it will abound with Old Testament references. Heb. 3 gives us the context: God had promised the sons of Israel the land of Canaan, but the Exodus generation could not enter into it because of unbelief. They had to continually wander through the desert, never entering into God's promise to them, the land of Canaan, thereby, in a sense, never entering into His rest. Heb. 4:1 exhorts not to make the same error. Therefore, let us fear so that while a promise remains unclaimed of entering into His rest, that not any one of you should seem to come short of it (Heb. 4:1). A general theme of Hebrews is faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the promised One of God and the problem with the Jews to whom this letter was written was their unbelief. Rest is a synonym here for salvation. The Jews continually worked for their salvation. God has done all of the work; Jesus Christ died for our sins on our behalf—He has done all the work for us to be saved; we only need to claim this promise by faith and enter into God's rest; a rest from our labors for God's approval. The unclaimed promise is appropriating Jesus Christ—the promised Messiah. For indeed we have had the good news preached to us, just as they also, but the word they heard did not profit them because it was not united by faith in those who heard (Heb. 4:2). In a nutshell we have the problem of the Exodus generation; they did not unite what they heard with faith; they did not mix the promises of God with faith. A contrast and comparison is set up here between the Jews reading this epistle and the Jews of the Exodus generation. What are the Jews to whom this epistle is addressed to unite with faith? The good news! For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "As I swore in my wrath, they will not enter My rest." although His works were finished from the foundation of the world (Heb. 4:3). In case you had trouble with rest being analogous to salvation, v. 3 explains this: those who believed entered into My rest. For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And on the seventh day, God rested from all His works." And again in [the Word]: "They will not enter into My rest." Since therefore it remains for some to enter it and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of obstinance (or, disobedience) (Heb. 4:4–6). God's work was accomplished from the foundation of the world because His plan was true and His decrees immutable. The Jews, although saved, never rested because of their unbelief in His Word. The Jews reading this will never enter into God's salvation rest because of their unbelief and obstanance. The Hebrew writer is very tactful here; all those who read this know about the hard-headed Exodus generation; so the writer can say these were obstinant or disobedient. But his inference are those who do not claim the promise of the good news—they do not claim it out of obstinance and disobedience. He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." (Heb. 4:7). This certain day being spoken of is not the Sabbath but the day this epistle is read, which has amounted to over a half a million days thus far. This is today; this is right now. The book of Hebrews is God speaking to the reader; this is God's voice and you are hearing it right now. Do not do wha the Exodus generation did; the walked until they dropped like flies in the desert after 40 years. They heard God's voice and they hardened their hearts. They never entered into God's rest because of unbelief. You listening to God's voice right now—do not harden your heart; do not spend the rest of your life wandering through the hot, arid desert of life; do not because of your unbelief fail to claim this promise of God and enter into His rest. All you have to do is to believe in Jesus Christ. For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that (Heb. 4:8). Joshua entered the land with the sons of the Exodus generation. If entering into the land was the true rest, why would David say "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." Chronology is brought into the picture. The Jews have hardened their hearts for centuries. David had an audience to speak to. The writer of Hebrews still has an audience to speak to. Those who are alive today hearing or reading this—God is still speaking to you. Just because Joshua entered the land, doesn't mean that the Jews suddenly became great believers. Entering the land was analogous to God's rest, which is analogous to salvation. Notice how the context of this verse is entering into God's rest—this context has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the Sabbath. The Sabbath is being taught as a type of rest; a rest into which the Exodus generation did not enter because of unbelief. The sign of this was the fact that they wandered the desert for forty years and died their because of their unbelief and obstinance. There remains, therefore, a Sabbath rest for the people of God (Heb. 4:9). Who are the people of God? This context is not the church of God, the universal church of believers. The people of God are the Jews—those who are reading this epistle. There is still a Sabbath rest for the Jews reading this right now. The context is that the Exodus generation did not enter into the land— into God's rest. Even after Joshua took the next generation into the land, David still told them, "Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." This Sabbath rest available to the Jews reading this epistle is not keeping the Sabbath under some legalistic system. The Sabbath rest is God's glorious salvation provided thorugh the Messiah, the subject of the book of Hebrews, Jesus Christ (read Heb. 1). For you see, the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, just as God did form His (Heb. 4:10). Here the type or the analogy is further explained: when you enter into God's rest (which is obviously not keeping the Sabbath), then you are resting from your works just as God rested from his. Remember, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His own mercy He saved us (Titus 3:5). Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one fall through as the same example of disobedience [i.e., the Exodus generation] (Heb. 4:11).

"For in six days [lit., the six of days], Yahweh made heavens and earth, the sea and all that is in them and He rested on day seven [lit., the day of seven]; therefore, Yahweh blessed the day of the Sabbath and consecrated it. [Ex. 20:11]

After several verse that we had to struggle through, this verse is a cakewalk. We do not have the word for create here, but the word for make, accomplish, do. This is the word where something is made out of something else. The heavens and the earth had already been created; during the six days, God restored the earth and its atmosphere to what we have today. This restoration process took six days; not because God was unable to do it sooner (it could have been instantaneous); but He worked for six days and rested on the seventh for a type. The Sabbath illustrates resting from our works for salvation. We enter into God's rest instead.

The next five commandments are a freedom code, as Thieme was wont to say. These laws define our freedom and the things which keep a nation free. If a nation adheres to these laws, even as unbelievers, they will experience a certain amount of blessing and happiness. When we follow God's laws under any circumstances, our lives cannot help but be better for it. In fact, any society could adopt these laws, enforce the judgements, and see a great benefit from it. It would take a couple generations for people to adjust, but a stronger, better society with greater freedom would result.

I know that some people would take issue with that. People have gotten to the point where they define freedom in terms of how much they are able to sin. Many acts as though their sins have no effects on society. One of the examples of this is drugs. People believe that drugs are here to stay, they should be legalized, and that we should empty the jails of all those there on drug charges. Furthermore, the state should provide drugs at discount prices or even free of charge to those who desire them. The rationale behind this is that once drugs are provided, then those who use them will no longer be a drain on society and no longer engage in criminal activity. Balderdash. I have been well-acquainted with several people who have spent a great deal of their lives using drugs and some of them have become hopeless and totally useless members of society who are unable to carry their own weight due to continued drug-abuse and we are to pay the bill to help them live (and provide them with drugs). Our homeless problem, although not made up of 100% drug users, has a very high percentage of drug and alcohol abusers. Our mental institutions have got a large percentage of drug abusers living there. An outgrowth of hedonistic drug abuse has been hedonistic sexual activity, which has begun an AIDS epidemic which will cost society billions of dollars and untold human suffering and grief (including that which is suffered by those who received the HIV virus in birth, conjugal relations with their spouse and through blood transfusions). So every kid who thinks that they should be allowed to take drugs because it doesn't cause anyone else any harm is wrong. The drug epidemic has spiraled out of control beyond what was ever foreseeable in the 1960's. Furthermore, the drug-related crime would not disappear with the provision of free drugs. People who use drugs and cannot function as they should in society—holding a job, producing, and providing for their own—will turn to crime out of their envy and hedonistic tendencies to get the things that they want. The first step away from all of this is the command given to young people:

"Honor your father and mother that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you. [Ex. 20:12]

The key to this verse is respect for authority, upon which all orderly societies exist. Without this respect, society is degenerating. The child who believes an adult, a parent, a teacher, a policeman must first erarn his respect and then he might consent to respect them—that child is totally disoriented to life. There are not enough hours in the day for those in authority to earn the respect of each and every single person they come into contact with. The primary people who face this daily are policemen. They have an extremely difficult and discouraging job to face. Whereas a teacher who is half-way decent or has a reasonable personality occasionally receives compliments from students and parents, the policeman who has to stop you for speeding, who has to question you because you fit a description of someone just placed on his radio or computer—this man rarely gets a compliment or a word of appreciation for helping to control the lawless elements of our society. I am reminded of a totally arrogant jerk who once proudly told me and a couple of other people how he was questioned by the police while in a bar. Realizing he did not have to give the officer of the law a valid driver's license, he gave him one of these plastic cards that you get in the mail with your name on it enrolling you in a record club. How unbelievably arrogant and disrespectful! He was hauled down to the police station where he spent several hours and was finally released after engaging (and paying) a lawyer. Since I barely knew this person, I thought to myself, but did not express it, what an arrogant jerk! I was glad that he spent that time in jail and had to go through the hassle that he went through. A policeman has a very difficult job to do and requires as much respect and cooperation as we are able to give—even if we are the one's receiving the ticket. This does not mean that some police officers are not wrong or that they never exercise poor judgment—they have old sin natures just like you and I have and there are certainly going to be some bad apples in any organization. However, this does not preclude our giving them the respect that they deserve. This verse is the basis for all authority orientation and respect, which, from a well-trained individual or from a grace-oriented person, is automatic.

Another important point—unrelated to this verse, but an tangent: only those who have been under authority and have respect for authority should wield authority. Those who want to be in control because they think they know what is best or they believe themselves to be smarter than those around them are not qualified either by desire or by intellectual ability to have authority. Even those who have the knowledge of the company, firm or organization should not necessarily be in authority. Just as a teenager sees the freedom that an adult has, yet does not see the accompanying responsibility; often the people who desire a leadership position can only see the power, but have not even a clue as to their responsibilities. A good policeman is first and foremost a servant of his community; a good administrator in a school is there first and foremost to make certain that his teachers have the opportunity to teach. A good coach is there first and foremost for the growth and training of their young people. A president of a company is there to correctly direct and serve the company, which makes him responsible to and for every single employee there. The higher one climbs in authority, the greater is their responsibility for those beneath them.

After our relationship to God, the most important relationship which we have is with our parents (which includes step-parents, parents via adoption, guardians, relatives acting in place of the parents, etc.). In fact, it is often the relationship with our parents which leads us into salvation. The family is the most basic unit of society, based upon right man/right woman. When that unit breaks down, then society degenerates. We have seen that in our country; since the 1960's, the family unit has erroded due to materialism lust, hedonism, sexual infidelity and immorality. This approach is interesting for two reasons: there are two generations of Israelites who will hear these commandments—those who will die in the desert after wandering for forty years, due to their hatred of God's Word and their children, who will enter the land and begin to take it from the degenerate peoples which occupy it. God speaks to that younger generation. Even though their parents are worthless, God mandates that they give their parents their respect and honor. The second thing which strikes me is that the family begins from the top down; that is, the parents train their children properly and a society benefits greatly. We have roughly three generations of degenerate children around whose parents for the most part did not take on the responsibility which comes with having children. Both parents worked in many cases not to break even but to gain great material possessions. Instead of time, love and guidance, children received their own rooms stereos, VCR's, TV's, computers and gameboy. In other families, the father deserted the family early on, leaving the mother to raise the children. Although this is the fault of the father, this is not only the fault of the father. Women have become immmoral; they sleep with men who turn them on and couplings occur between people who are not at all suited for one another; or before either person is really ready for a lifetime commitment. By the time they realize this, they have children and the man leaves. Morality on the part of the woman and character on the part of the man would have turned a lot of families around. However, this approaches the family from the other direction. The child is born, he is old enough to make some decisions, and he learns God's commandments. Regardless of the short-comings of the parents (and every parent has an old sin nature, so every parent has short-comings), the child is told here to honor, respect, revere his parents.

This commandment was so important that any child who struck his parents could be put to death (Ex. 21:15) and a child who was rebellious and out of control could be brought before the court and executed (Deut. 21:18–21). Some children were so disrespectful, that even God desired that they be executed (I Sam. 2:22–25). The Bible gives us a much stronger concept of authority orientation that we are used to.

This is certainly a major theme in the New Testament. Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is honorable. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise [which is]): that you may be prospered and that you may live long on the earth (Eph. 6:1–3). Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is commendable in the Lord (Col. 3:20). It is the common thought of the teenager that the rules and the limits set up by their parents have the express intention of curtailing as much fun as possible. The parent has made many mistakes by that time and out of love is attempting to save the child from amking the same mistakes.

That your days might be long has a two-fold meaning. By direct interpretation, your is the second person, masculine singular suffix and it refers to the individual believers, men and women. When you are properly oriented to authority by being first oriented to the authority of your parents, your life will be fuller in terms of days and in terms of quality. It is those people who are in continual rebellion against all forms of authority who are unhappy. They are unhappy because they will always have some form of authority over them and half of the time that authority will be unjust, unfair and unreasonable. This is normal and the person who has trouble with that will spend great portions of their life in misery because of this. By implication, a nation of people who are authority-oriented, first to their parents and then to authority in general, is a nation which will survive for a long time and will be healthy and strong.

The responsibility of the father is given in Heb. 126–8, given by way of analogy, implies the duties of a father: For those whom the Lord loves, He disciplines and He scourges every son whom He receives. It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Notice that even though this passage is not about a father's need to dsicpline his children, such behavior is expected. Today, because of some abusive fathers (and mothers), we have gone completly in the other direction, some people thinking it even wrong to spank a child. But what about abusive parents? The Bible covers that also. Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart (Col. 3:21). And fathers, do not provoke you children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 5:4). Notice that—this is the father who works every day all day long and who is put in charge of the child's spiritual growth? The father. I didn't write this and if it were me, I would have put the mother, who is with the children from birth, in charge of their spiritual growth. But God, who has a bit more insight than I do puts the father as the one ultimately responsible for the spiritual growth of the children. Further notice that this is not a mandate to beat your children or to spank them daily. Spankings should certainly be a last resort; they should be painful and they should be sparse. They lose their effectiveness if threatened and never carried out (as is true of all empty threats) and they are worthless when they are overdone. This destroys the fear and respect of the child for the father.

I need to point out that this does not leave the mother out of the picture altogether; for it stands written: My son, observe the commandment of your father and do not forsake the teaching of your mother (Prov. 6:20). Even though the previous verses listed only the father; this is because he is the head of the household and the one ultimately responsible for the salvation and spiritual growth of his children (within the limits of their own volition—it is possible for a father to do everything right and still end up with degenerate children). However, the man can delegate responsibility and the woman can initiate teaching of spiritual things to her children.

Another principle comes of of this, although we are out on the tangent of a tangent. Even though those who were at the crucifixion of our Lord were women and even though they seemed to have a clearer picture of what was going on than all of the disciples put together, God places spiritual responsibility square in the lap of the man. It is with men where honor and character should begin, and spiritual dedication. It is unfortunate in a family where only the woman has an interest in things spiritual because she does not have the authority; she is under the authority of her husband and an evil, degenerate husband can undermine the solid teaching she gives her children. And since we are on a tangent, one of the reasons the authority rests with the male in this life is seen with today's single parent families. How many women got themselves into a bad marriage because of their own immorality and materialism lust and sexual lust and then how many of these women as single parents with children living in their home, bring men that they are not married home and sleep with them; how many of these women move in a boyfriend. And we wonder why so many children begin having sex at age 11 and 12; just who the hell do you think they learned it from, mom?

Before we leave this verse, notice its promise: that you may live long in the land. Remember, this is directed to the second generation of those who exited Egypt and this promise is to them; therefore, interpretation is very limited. However, this has a wider application. For those who obey and honor their parents (which 98% of the time is for their own good), even if it is a matter of do what I say and not what I do; God here promises them longer life. Even for unbelievers, those who become involved in drugs and drinking and pre-marital sex and using a car without responsibility as if it is their teenage toy, they would do well to listen to the instruction of their parents and to obey their parents. It does not matter if their parents have been total failures and flops up until then; they still need to obey their parents in all things and respect their parents. In most cases, they would be told to lay off the drugs and drinking, improve their school work, go to college or learn a trade, put pre-marital sex on the back burner; save it for marriage; and be responsible when dealing with adult tools, like a car—obeying these mandates would give them many days in the land.

The next three commandments are the shortest commandments. Each consists of two words: the negative and the 2nd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of some verb.

Also see the Doctrine of Killing and Murder—not finished yet! Furthermore, for many of the commandments given in the Law, the penalty for them is execution by man—this obviously opens the door for killing under certain circumstances. This is clearly taught, for instance, in Ex. 21:20 where the penalty for intentional manslaughter is death: He that strikes a man so that he dies, shall be surely put to death. See also Ex. 21:15–17. Furthermore, God will command the children of Israel to go into the land of Canaan and in some cases slaughter entire populations: man, woman, child and animal. So obviously there are circumstances where man is commanded by God to kill another man.

In some ways, murder is the ultimate sin because you deprive a man the use of his volition for good or for bad. The angelic conflict, to some extent, is dependent upon the decisions that we make. Without our volition, there is no angelic conflict. We are never to have our volition taken from us—not by a spiritual bully, not by parents running out lives after we have become an adult and have moved out of their house, not by the federal government. In murder, one is robbed of his earthly volition forever.

This exact commandment is repeated in the New Testament (Rom. 13:9) and, in fact, is taken quite a bit further in the New Testament. Jesus said, "You have heard that the ancients were told, "You will not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder will be liable to the courts.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother will be guilty before the court; and whoever will say to his brother, 'Raca' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever will say, 'You fool' will be guilty enough to go into the hell of fire" (Matt. 5:21–23). Without going into great detail, which this verse demands, it places hatred on the same plane as murder, insofar as the eventual punishment is eternity in the Lake of Fire. The business about the courts sets up an analogy because a man certainly cannot be executed for anger. The important concept to grasp here is that the motivation behind murder and mental attitude sins are just as wrong in God's sight as the act of murder itself.

Thieme breaks down society into four divine institutions: volition, marriage, family and nation. With the exception of a very few fringe members, all believers and unbelievers have belonged and do belong to these institutions. They were designed by God for believers and unbelievers. They are the very structure of society. Attempts to modify or change these institutions are attacks by Satan. It is from him whence comes homosexual marriages, the state controlling our volition, the breakdown of nationalism for some sort of international system, children being raised by the state or by child-care institutions—all these are attacks on our society by Satan. One of the greatest atacks in our society today is the over-emphasis upon sex; whereas people are made to think that if they are not having a lot of very exciting, erotic sex, then there is something wrong with them. In order to achieve this, people commit adultery, they have sex prior to marriage, they marry and remarry, and chase this illusive hedonism. Very few people ever find this, and when they do, it is very temporary, and it usually comes at the expense of love. Going on a hedonistic, sexual binge short-circuits a portion of your system and it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, to identify your right man or right woman. And you do not get to go out on a youthful sexual-lust binge for 2-20 years and then think you can straighten it all out later. Adultery is just one of the sexual sins, but just as murder is an attack upon the first divine institution, volition; adultery is an attack on the second divine institution, marriage.

This verse first and foremostly protects private property. Believers and unbelievers, Jews and Gentiles all have the right to own property and all have the right to have their property safe from violation. Nowhere does the Bible state that all the earth is God's, therefore we all own our things in common because they first and foremost belong to God; and secondly, because we are all brothers, these things belong to all of us. There were special circumstances during times of severe persecution when men and women huddled together in small churches and shared what they had. However, this was all a matter of free will on their part. Communism and socialist mean to take away our personal property and possessions and our wealth. They are anti-God because they sponser the government doing the exact opposite of what a good government is supposed to do. A good government looks to protect the private possessions of its citizenry—not to take them away. The Bible does not set up a particular form of government that we must all live under. It allows for a reasonable amount of freedom in governmental organization. However, any government which runs exactly counter to these commandments is evil to its core.

Some churches are so bent on taking your money from you, that we are made to feel as though there is something wrong with owning property, personal possessions, luxury items, etc. We have a divine right to property which we have earned legally. There is a place for giving, but that is not in view here. What is in view is what someone else owns is divinely protected. God demands that we allow others the right to purchase, collect, and own private property and that we have no right as individuals to steal it. This may be expanded to today's world where the state has no right to come in a steal private property. This does not preclude taxation, however. The New Testament affirms this in Matt. 19:18 and Rom. 13:9.

Because the KJV was the Bible for so long, and because certain passages were commonly memorized (the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the first few verese of Genesis), it is difficult to exegete some passages because the translation sometimes comes out so differently (e.g., Ex. 20:7). V. 16 begins as the previous three verses did: with a negative and the the 2nd person, masculine singular, Qal imperfect of a verb; this verb being ‛ânâh (ה ָנ ָע) [pronounced aw-NAW], a word with three very diverse meanings (actually, it is better seen as three words which are spelled the same). It means answer, respond, testify; occupied with, busied with (found very rarely in the Old Testament; Ecc. 1:13 3:10); and afflicted, troubled. Here it obviously means answer, testify. This is followed by the prefixed proposition v^e (׃ב) [pronounced v(eh)] and it means in, into, near, at, by, with. It does not mean against. It is prefixed to the noun rêa‛ ( ַע ֵר) [pronounced RAY-ah] and it means friend, companion, and even neighbor, and it is found about 200 times in the Old Testament (Gen. 15:10 Ex. 2:13 32:27 II Sam. 16:17). Rêa‛ has a 2nd person, masculine singular suffix, translated your. A cooperative relationship rather than an adverarial one is implied. ‛Êd (ע ֵד) [pronounced ayd] means witness, testimoney, evidence and it is in the construct; to give you an idea of how the construct is used, let's say that Moses has a tent. If we put tent in the construct and follow it with Moses, then the translation would be the tent of Moses or Moses' tent. The final word is sheqer (ר ∵ק ∵ש) [pronounced SHEH-ker] and it means dceception, disappointment, falsehood. The traditional way to render these two words it a testimoney of deception, a witnessness of falsehood, or a false witness. This changes the commonly rendered you will not bear false witness against your neighbor to you will not testify with your neighbor [or, friend] a witness of deception.

"You will not testify [or, answer] with [or, by] your neighbor a witness of deception [or, a false witness, a false testimony]. [Ex. 20:16]

What is implied here is collusion on testimony which is false. Our word for this today is perjury, but here the person is perjuring themselves in order to agree with the testimony of another. This does not have to be a court case. Your friend can be gossiping about someone and you can chime in with a rumor which you have heard and possibly unthinkingly embellished. In any case, it is a lie, and it is against God's law to lie. Matt. 19:18 leaves out the portion about the neighbor; what is a sin is the lying. In Acts 5 we have one of the most famous cases of collusion and misrepresentation. Ananias and Sapphira were a couple who sold a piece of property and acted as though they had given all of the proceeds to the church. The problem was not that they held back some of the funds, but that they misled everyone into thinking that they had not. We are under no obligation to give all of our funds to the church, to the missionaries that come through our church, etc. We need only give as God has prospered. However, we should not act as though we are giving sacrificially when in reality we are not. Both Ananias and Sapphira died because they had lied to the Holy Spirit, insofar as they misled their fellow believers.

Thieme calls this last commandment the Magna Carta of Freedom. It is this commandment which gives us our rights to privacy, property, person and possessions. This is the commandment which tells us not to be envious of what another has; not to crave or desire any of their possessions. If you have owned a nice, relatively new, good-looking car, and its been stolen or someone has keyed it, you have been the victim of covetousness. Someone envied what you had; someone was jealous of your possession and acting out of their old sin nature. If you have a spouse who is attractive, in soul and/or in appearance, we have possibly experienced (or they have experienced) a male or female Lothario hit on them, despite their wedding ring. You are victims of someone who has broken this commandment. If you have ever had one of your possessions stolen or experienced a break-in to your automobile or your personal residence, your privacy and person have been violated, as well as your right to own of property, by someone who has broken this commandment.

"You will not [be envious of and] crave your neighbor's house; you will not crave your neighbor's wife or his manservant

or his maidservant or his ox or his donkey or anything that is your neighbor's." [Ex. 20:17]

There is a wonderful old English word which describes this: covetousness—however, this word is such a relic that some people would not have a full understanding of what is going on. However, you see something which belongs to your neighbor, you develop a great desire for it and you crave it. He may have a beautiful wife and you desire her. He may have recently purchased a new Jaguar and you crave it. He may have purchased a Renoir and you are jealous and desire to have it. No matter where you look, there will always be someone who is thinner, richer, drives a nicer car, has a better looking spouse although they aren't as good-looking as you, they are smarter, wittier, etc. God has provided for our every need. He has made it possible for any one of us to have great happiness and great inner peace and tranquility on this earth; it just requires salvation, rebound, the intake of doctrine, and our trust in and deference to His judgement and guidance. As Paul wrote, Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstance I am; I now how to get along with humble means and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need (Phil. 4:11–12). It is this desire for things which others have which motivates lying, deceit, stealing, adultery and killing. Parents who do not teach their children not to lust raise a generation of criminals. Remove the lust for what you do not have but your neighbor does and you remove 70% of all criminal activity. Covetousness, or lust (which does not have to be exclusively a word used for sexual lust) is forbidden in the New Testament as well (Rom. 7:7–8).

Paul accepted, to some degree as an unbeliever, the authority of the Bible (which, in his time, was just the Old Testament and a few epistles and a gospel or two, the latter two not in wide circulation yet). A portion of realizing that we need a savior is to recognize that no matter how how we try, no matter what we do, we are not and never will be perfect. Since we do not fulfill the Law, then we are filthy before God. What clued Paul into his inadequacy is this commandment. I would not have come to the point of recognizing sin except by means of the Law; for you see, I would not have known about coveting had the Law not said, You will not covet. But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law, sin [would have been] dead [to me] (Rom. 7:7b–8). None of us keep any of the commandments except in the most legalistic, limited sense. However, Paul recognized that this is where his inadequacies lie.

Now that we have covered the Ten Commandments (lit., the Ten Words), we need to examine the Doctrine of the Suzerainty-vassal Treaties—not finished yet!!

Now when all of the people perceived the thunderings and the lightenings and the sound of the trumpet and the monutain smoking; and the people saw [or, the people were afraid; or the people stood in awe]. They trembled and stood afar off. [Ex. 20:18]

Thunderings and lightenings do not specifically mean that. Thunderings means noise or voice and lightenings means torch. However, when these words are used in conjunction with one another, they likely mean thunder and lightning. Recall that there were not a lot of rains in Egypt so the Jews did not require a specialized vocabulary for everything which occurred in a storm. This indicates that Moses heard the Ten Commandments, but the people saw only the smoking and lightning and heard only the thunder and the trumpet.

The verb used with the word people is disputed. It is either the 3rd masculine singular, Qal imperfect of see or of fear. I prefer to think that it is see as their fear is already alluded to in the latter portion of this verse. The reason that nothing is said with regard to their hearing anything; the Jews did not, for all intents and purposed, hear anything beyond the storm. They did not hear the commandments; and , ever later when confronted with them, acted still as though they hadn't heard them. In either case, we do not lose much of the meaning of this verse, since it is narrative. The next two verbs are in the 3rd masculine plural, which is where we get a they from. They were very much afraid of God; even though He led them out of Egypt and has seen to their every need, they know what they are like inside and they are uncomfortable with such a Holy and powerful God. Moses has been a go-between and they are more than satisfied to keep Moses between them and God. This is a parallelism of the people's own volition which is wonderful. Religious people sneer or minimize God's great gift to us in the sacrifice of His Son. And because of the cross, Jesus stands between God and us, a mediator, One who is able to stand before the perfection and holiness of our God, yet gives to us a kindly hand. The people recognized this need and asked for Moses to stand in the gap between themselves and God.

And [the people] said to Moses, "You speak with us and we will listen; but do not let God speak with us or we will die." [Ex. 20:19]

The preopsition which is usually mistranslated is the simple preposition ‛îm (ם.ע) [pronounced eem], which means with, not to. God through the Ten Commandments, speaks to us; God through Moses spoke to the people. However, God spoke with Moses, because the people feared to come too close to God. The people had good reason to fear God and His power. They had seen His strength in action against Pharaoh. More importantly, because they were short-sighted, they could see God's power in the storm.

And Moses said to the people, "Do not fear; to test you, God has come so that the fear of Him [may be] before your eyes so that you may not sin." [Ex. 20:20]

Some translations reorder this verse somewhat to smooth it out. However, the intent is clear; God is revealing his power before them in order to continue to maintain their respect and fear of Him. It may seem like a contradiction that Moses tels the people not to be afraid and then tells them that part of the purpose of God's coming is to make them afraid. It is the same word; it is first a verb and then we have the noun cognate. This is a figure of speech where the fear of Him stands for that which makes people afraid. That is, the storm and the power and the trumpets and all the things that cause them to fear—it is those things which God places before their eyes so that they would not sin. Fear is simply a word which stands for their reaction to what God placed before them.

And the people stood afar off while Moses drew near to the thick cloud [or, thick gloom] where God was. [Ex. 20:21]

My feeling is this. In time, vv. 1–17 occurred after vv. 18–21; however, in order to separate these most basic laws from the rest, Moses does not record this chronologically. The Ten Commandments are the basic freedom code, as Thieme put it; they are the skeleton upon which all the other laws hang. They are the essentials for Israel; now God will give Israel the details and the specifics. What the Jews did is they took all of these laws, the decalogue and the laws which come from them, and designed more laws—a deeply complex, very legalistic code which attempted to anticipate each and every possible situation and variation and give actions which must accompany those situations. This rabbinical study of the Law, in which they do not see God's grace, their own failures, or the sacrifices of Leviticus as being their Messiah—resulted in the Mishna, the Midrash and the Talmud. The Mishna is the oral traditions of the Rabbis; a commentary, if you will, on the Torah, the Law of Moses. However, they go beyond being a commentary to being an addition to the Torah; a great complex list of laws, and if's and then's. It is not too far removed from our American constitution and then all the laws and statutes and resolutions and regulations which have resulted from the constitution. We could remove perhaps 80% of the governmental interpretation of the constitution and function just as well, if not better, than we are now. The Mishna is the verbal traditions based upon the Torah. The Midrash is a linguistic study of the Old Testament; however, unlike this commentary, which attempts to derive meaning from the original language, the Midrash enters into this realm of triviality of the linguistics, pursuing such things as, as ZPEB put it, farfetched connections made on the sheer analogies of the sounds of words. When the Mishna was committed to writing, the Talmud was also written down and such things and the leading of beasts, the 39 kinds of work, the throwing of objects, the moving of objects, containers, and people were all related to the Sabbath into a huge list of do's and don't's. Although we do not know for certain the time periods in which these documents were produced, many of the legalistic additions to the Torah were obviously in effect at least by tradition, during the time of our Lord's walk on this earth. The first written version which I believe that we have of the Talmud was produced during the first four centuries ad, although several versions and updates have been made since then. What is the connection between this verse and what I have just written. This verse describes the history of the Jews: the people stood at a distance while Moses approached the thick cloud where God [was].

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Thus you will say to the people of Israel, 'You have seen that I have spoken with you from heaven. [Ex. 20:22]

Where this verse reads, I have spoken with you from heaven, this is not God speaking to Moses because you is in the plural and not the singular. God speaks to Moses, who speaks to the people. Since what Moses said came directly from the mouth of God, the words that the people received were as from heaven.

"'You will not make [in close association] with Me gods of silver nor gods of gold will you make for yourselves. [Ex. 20:23]

We have two words for with in these pat two verses; they are prepositions which we have not examined before. In v. 22, we have the preposition ‛îm (ם.ע) [pronounced eem] and it means with, in conjunction with, together with, as long as [in conjunction with time], close to, beside, in the possession of, in the custody or care of, besides (except). The implication here is more than God speaking to the people (as He spoke to Egypt through Moses), here He speaks with the people, even though it is through Moses; a closer association is implied. Any young student can tell you the difference between a teacher speaking to them and with them. In v. 23, we have another preposition ’êth (ת ֵא) [pronounced ayth] and this is a preposition of nearness, often translated with, by, at among. It is a preposition which is even closer than ‛îm

Following the Ten Commandments was one of the very first laws which the Jews broke. This was a continuation of the second commandment; this expanded upon the second commandment. There were to be no idols, not even if the idol was supposed to represent the one true God. The second preposition, ’êth, means that no matter how closely the Jews associated the statue with God, it was still forbidden to them to make such an idol. Even if the idol was made out of the most precious metals, this was not what God wanted. Do you worship or often look toward that so-called picture of Jesus; do you have a statue of Mary, the mother of the humanity of God? This is idolatry. We do not know what either one looked like. Even in His time, Jesus was not easily recognized (recall that Judas had to reveal to the mob which one Jesus was). What we have is a picture which was based upon artistic guesses from, if memory serves, the fifth century ad.

"'An altar of earth will you make for Me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings; your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you. [Ex. 20:24]

In an altar, there is no attempt on the Jews' part to makes a likeness of God; to attempt something to even spiritually represent His features. The altar made of earth speaks of Jesus Christ coming to this earth and taking on a body made of earth, just as Adam was fashioned out of the chemical elements of the earth. However, the altar itself is not worshipped, nor is it thought by anyone to represent some kind of physical likeness of God (particularly since "God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in doctrine"—John 4:24). Although burnt offerings have only been mentioned in a few places and although their is not much detail afforded to them prior to this time; the believers did have some kind of knowledge of their importance and the proceedure which was to be followed.

"'And if you make Me an altar of stone, you will not build [it] or hewed stones for if you wield your tool upon it, you profane it. [Ex. 20:25]

Châlal (ל ַל ָח) [pronounced khaw-LAL] is based upon a root to bore into; thereby wound. It means profane, pollute, defile, corrupt; this it the antonym of consecrate, set apart, purify. The latter takes something which was common and sets it apart to God or dedicates it to God; châlal takes something which is holy and desecrates it, pollutes and defiles it; associates it with that which is common and filthy. This is in the Piel imperfect, 2nd masculine singular with a 3rd feminine singular suffix (which refers to the stone); this is addressed to each individual Jew and it is in the intensive stem, indicating the severity of this pollution of that which is holy. The imperfect indicates that the altar continues to be desecrated.

Those who are grace oriented understand the analogy immediately. The sacrifice is not to be associated with human works in any way, shape or form. We have saved by faith alone in Christ alone. If you stand upon your faith in Him and trust some little good deed that you have done, some attempt to be better, some vow to please God, some intention to turn your life around for Him; then you are not saved. Our salvation does not come from asking Jesus into our hearts or into our lives; it does not come from repenting of our sins; it does not come from making Him Lord over our lives; it comes from one thing and one thing exclusively: believing in Jesus Christ for our salvation; it comes from trusting His finished work upon the cross. There can be no mixture of human works into our salvation. So when we have an altar which speaks of Christ's work on the cross on our behalf, there can be no human works, no human artistic ability, no human stone work associated with it. Attempting to associate our puny works with His marvelous work on the cross profanes His holy work on our behalf.

"'And you will not go up by steps to my altar so that your nakedness is not exposed on it.'" [Ex. 20:26]

Just as we have in v. 25, any sort of works profanes the altar. Going up by steps (possibly not unlike the stations of the cross?) implies that there are some works involved to come to the altar of God. However, when we come to God with our works in hand, we embarrass ourselves with their worthlessness. We in God's sight are exposed for the wretched creatures that we are. Our works that we bring do not please him. For the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). Our righteousnesses are as menstrous rags in His sight (Isa. 64:6).

I ntroduction: The next few chapters deal with various ordinances and the punishment for their transgression. These can almost all the traced back to the decalogue. Just as our constitution has provided us a frame work on which to hand our system of government, so have the Ten Commandments provided a framework upon which to hang all correct government. These laws however are not designed by man, but designed by God, for Israel at that particular time.

"Now these are the ordinances [and judgements] which you will set before them: [Ex. 21:1]

One of the more common words in the Pentateuch is the word mishpâţ(ט ָ ׃ש ̣מ) [pronounced mish-PAWT] and it is generally translated laws, ordinances, judgements. These are the specifics and the applications of the Ten Commandments. They carry with them punishments and what if's. The Emphasized Bible gives the possible translation divine applications of law to actual life. A one-word translation is just not enough to convey what is here.

In this verse, God is continuing His conversation with Moses; Aaron possibly is taking dictation or Moses is. It is reasonable to suppose that they are going to write these things in the book, alluded to in Ex. 17:14.

""When you buy a Hebrew slave, we will serve six years and in the seventh, he will go out free for nothing. [Ex. 21:2]

We are working here both with principle and with analogy. Just as the Jews were to spend some time in slavery and then to go out of Egypt, so the Jews under private ownership were to do the same. They are God's people and as such are free. The Bible nowhere takes a direct position against slavery; in the book of Philemon, Paul suggests to the recipient that he free his slave, Onesimus, because he is also a believer in Jesus Christ—however, he does not require this (a mature believer would have freed Onesimus and a weaker one would not have). This passage at best implies that slavery is not the ideal position for a slave.

In this verse, where it says they will go out free for nothing, means that there are no requirements for the slave to fulfill in order to be released. The slave does not have to produce a certain amount nor does he have to somehow see that his master his compensated for his release. He is released from slavery for nothing.

"If he comes in [to slavery] single [lit., with himself alone], he will go out single; if [he is] the husband of a wife [lit., the owner of a wife], then his wife will go with him. [Ex. 21:3]

The bracketed words are not a part of the translation. They are put there by inference and to smooth out the translation. Bôw (א) [pronounced bo] means come in, come, go in, go; in this context, they are going into slavery. What is interesting, and I do not have an explanation for it as of yet: he comes into slavery and goes out of slavery both in the Qal imperfect; however, his wife goes with him in the Qal perfect. I would have assumed that all of these would have been Qal perfect???

We then have the preposition with and the rarely used noun (with the 3rd person, singular masculine suffix) gaph (ף ַ) [pronounced gahf] which was originally translated body, but it is only found here, twice in v. 3 and once in v. 4 and then in a completely different sentence structure in Prov. 9:3. In Proverbs, it is translated the highest places and here body. I am not sure that there is a reason to translate it body. The Septuagint translates this by the Greek word for alone, one and I think that we ought to do the same.

There are several scenarios that have to be dealt with here. The first are those where he enters into slavery as single or married; he is allowed to leave in the same state. The first thing that popped into my mind, what if he marries during slavery? God deals with that next:

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he will go out alone. [Ex. 21:4]

An interesting literary quirk here: master is in the plural but give demands a singular subject. This might be the plural of quality rather than of quantity (the verb would indicate that).

"But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children—I will not go out free.' [Ex. 21:5]

Note who is first on this list: the master (which is in the singular). The slave is making a clear declaration, probably in front of witnesses, of his choice. He realizes that he will not be able to purchase the freedom of his wife or children and he has a choice—which is more important, his wife and children or his station in life. A man faced with these kinds of choices would think quite carefully before entering into marriage as a slave. We face a similar situation today. As a single person, a man can pick up stakes, move from job to job, move from state to state or country to country unencumbered with no social responsibilities. However, when one takes on a wife and child, one assumes a great many responsibilities, not the least of which is the providing of the basic necessities for his family. This means that a man in order to take care of his wife and children at times must remain in a job that he does not like, that he finds unfulfilling. In marriage a man must often say, "I love my job [or, my boss], my wife and my children—I will continue to work here."

"Then his master will bring him

to God and he will bring him to the door or to the doorpost and his master will bore through his ear with an awl and he will serve him for life [lit., forever]. [Ex. 21:6]

It is interesting that the earliest connotation of pierced ears for men is a lifetime of slavery. This mark is a clear indication of volitional choice which lasts a lifetime. Similarly, when a man chooses a wife, the choice should be for a lifetime. If a man cannot make a commitment to anything for more than a couple weeks (or months or years) then he is not ready to be married. NASB reasonably interprets the bringing to God as bringing the slave before the judges who judge in God's stead. This emphasizes the solemnity and permanence of this decision. The same phrasing is found in Ex. 22:8, 9, and 28.

Rather than this law reading bring the slave to the judge, he is brought to God is not the only oddity in this verse or passage. What comes to my mind is why do we have the plural master but the singular verb? Certainly, the master is important in the life of this slave, but important enough to be in the plural? The answer for this grammatical oddity is that this law is also a shadow, that's why the grammar jumps out at you and grabs you. There is more here than just the law. Man is in the world of His Lord and Master Jesus Christ, Who created it. In the church age, we choose to be married to our Lord through believing in Christ (the analogy between salvation and marriage is found in Eph. 5:22–32 Rev. 19:7 21:2, 9). We can choose after salvation to serve God or not

; as this slave can choose to serve his master for the rest of his life. This analogy is further supported by the ending of this verse with the time period forever; obviously a slave cannot serve his master throughout eternity, particularly if one has been regenerated and the other has not. However, this is both a real law which is to be applied and a shadow of our servitude to our Lord Jesus Christ.

I may find myself repeating this often but this is God's Word; it does not matter if you agree with it or not. It does not matter whether this fits in with the way you were raised or not. This was the perfect government for Israel in this time and place. Some of the specific laws might change today, but the principles would remain the same.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not go out as the male slaves go out. [Ex. 21:7]

For some women, the Bible will make them grind their teeth. Some people, men and women alike, try to put the Bible strictly into the culture from whence they came and claim that these were the unevolved laws and perceptions and culture of Moses and Paul (since Paul was equally unenlightened). Moses and Paul recorded God's Word and even though specifics change, the principle does not. Men and women are entirely different creatures with different positions and stations in life. It has nothing to do with being better or worse, with being inferior or superior in intellectual or in physical abilities—it has to do with the fact that we are different creatures and God has a different plan for men and women in this life. It goes back to the creation of Adam and the woman and their original sins. Like it or not, the man has authority over the woman in marriage and there is often a specified double standard throughout the Bible. If no such double standard is revealed in the Word, than we may assume that a principle stated for a man applies to a woman and vice versa. In this situation, a man has chosen to sell his own daughter into slavery. This in of itself is quite the solemn decision. There is nothing like the bond between a man and his daughter. However, in the rare case where this is done, then the woman does not have the same privilege to leave the position of slavery after seven years of service. This means to a Hebrew male in slavery, there is no reason to get married other than love and a lifelong dedication, because this woman is a slave for life. Only the master has the volition to free her.

When I first examined this verse in the English, I must admit that I did not have a clue as to what was going on. Owen's reads: If she does not please (in the sight of) her master who has (not) designated her, then he shall let her be redeemed to a foreign people. He shall have no right to sell her since he has dealt faithlesly with her

. NASB: If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, the he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her ot a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.

This verse begins with an hypothetical particle which is followed by the 3rd person feminine singular, Qal perfect of râ׳a׳ (ע ַע ָר) [pronounced raw-ĢAHĢ], a word which can mean to be evil, bad. However, Zodhiates and the New Englishman's Hebrew Concordance list this as the adjective ra׳ (ע ַר) [pronounced raģ] (which, in the feminine, is râ׳â׳ (ע ָע ָר) [pronounced raw-ĢAWĢ] and it means evil, misery, distress. I am certain this is similar to a case which we have previously looked at where there are differences in opinion as to whether the masculine and feminine are different words and whether the word is a verb, an adjective or a noun, or an adjective acting as a substantive. However, in any case, she is displeasing (an alternate meaning born out by Num. 11:16 22:34 Jos. 24:15 Prov. 24:18). The feminine seems to soften the meaning of the word in the Hebrew.

The word often translated designated is the 3rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect, 3rd person feminine singular suffix of yâ‛ad (ד ַח ָי) [pronounced yaw-AD] and it means appoint, assign—especially insofar as acquiring or designating as wife. With it we have the is followed by a conjunction and the 3^rd person masculine singular, Hiphil perfect, 3rd person feminine singular of fâdâh (ה ָד ָ ) [pronounced faw-DAWH] and it means ransom, redeem. It is in the causative stem. So he is causing her to be redeemed and it is to a foreign people. Then we have to Qal imperfect of mâshal (ל ַש ָמ) [pronounced maw-SHAL] and it means to have dominion, power, rule, reign. This is combined with the negative and it is in the 3rd masculine singular but there is no suffix. Then we have the Qal infinitive construct with a 3rd feminine singular suffix of mâkar (ר ַכ ָמ) [pronounced maw-KHAR] and it means sell and it often means to buy or sell as a wife or as a slave. It is preceded by the lâmed preposition to, for, with regards to. This is followed by an explanatory preposition and the Qal infinitive construct of bâwgad (ד ַג ָ) [pronounced baw-GAD] and it means to deal treacherously, deceitfully, faithlessly. This has a 3rd person feminine singular suffix and the preposition with and another 3rd person, feminine singular suffix.

"If she has not been satisfactory [or, pleasing] in the sight of her master, who has not designated her [for a marriage] and he [intends to] cause her to be redeemed to a foreign people [then] he will have no authority to sell her [as a slave or as a wife] since he has dealt deceitfully with her. [Ex. 21:8]

We have one grammatical problem in v. 8. It is written lo’ (not) but read lo (for himself). Some codices (western Aramaic, Syriac and Septuagint) read for himself; in seven early printed editions of the Hebrew Bible and the Samaritan Pentateuch, it is written and read not. Remove the not, and it would read "If she has not been pleasing in the sight of her master, who had designated her for himself in marriage and he will cause her to be redeemed to a foreign people, then he will have no authority to sell her since he has dealt deceitfully with her."

What this man has done is he has purchased this daughter under false pretenses. He purchased her with the idea that she would become is wife or concubine (or possibly that she would at least become the wife of one of his slaves). He has come across a family which is in desperate straights and made an offer. He has decided either beforehand or alter on that he will not betrothe her either to himself or to another Jew, but he has decided to sell her to a foreigner. He has purchased her and has given the parents a false idea of what was to occur. Since he dealt deceitfully with her, he loses the power or authority to sell her to someone else either as a wife or as a slave.

The purchase of any slave involves a certain amount of capital and the master here had intentions of making money on his investment. However, God does not allow that because he bought this young woman under false pretenses or changed his mind concerning his purpose in purchasing her. This law forbids, in general, unethical business practices, although it is admittedly limited in scope here.

"If he designates her [to be married] with his son by law he will deal with her as with a daughter. [Ex. 21:9]

One of the unfortunate aspects of depending upon the scholarship of another is that they may not always be accurate. Owen's translation reads: If he designates her for his son as with a daughter he shall deal with her. Our problem is that the word mishpâţ(ט ָ ׃ש ̣מ) [pronounced mish-PAWT] is found in the Hebrew but nowhere in Owen's translation. Recall that this is generally translated laws, ordinances, judgements. This is preceded by the bêth preposition which means in, into, by.

Here is a man who has purchased a woman from a family in desperate straights and the understanding is that he has purchased her to be married to his son. Under these circumstances, she is not a slave to him to be bought or sold but he is to treat her as a daughter.

"If he takes another wife to himself, he will not diminish [the first wife's] status [as a close relative], clothing or her marital rights. [Ex. 21:10]

One word is a problem in v.10 and that is the one often translated food (NASB, KJV, The Amplified Bible, NRSV and Owen's). This word is sh^eêr (ר ֵא ׃ש) [pronounced sheh-AYR] which is translated in the Pentateuch as blood relative, near kinsman. The word means flesh, but it is used more figuratively for a close relationship, as we see in Lev. 18:6, 12, 13, 20:19 21:2 25:19 Num. 27:11 (this is a complete listing in the Pentateuch). Therefore, in this context, I have rendered this status, position. This would certainly include getting enough food to eat.

What we are dealing with is a man who has purchased a woman with the stated purpose that she would be wed to him or to his son. In v. 8, we loses the control of the woman because he purchased her under false pretenses; in v. 9, if she becomes his daughter-in-law, she is to be treated as a daughter and not in any way shape or form as a slave; and if he take her to himself as a wife and later takes a new wife, she is not to receive a lessor portion than that to which she has become accustomed.

In this last law, it is God's first choice for us to be married to one woman. However, in this point in time, men did marry several women and had several concubines so that God set up laws concerning those circumstances. See the Doctrine of Marriage and Bigamy—not finished yet!!

"And if these three things he does not do for her, she will go out [or, be manumitted] for nothing—without payment of money. [Ex. 21:11]

In these laws, God has given three different scenarios and how one who purchases an Hebrew woman from her family should deal with her. If he does not deal honorably with her as so stated, then she may leave him without being purchased.

I personally am at a loss as to the sentencing differences between first and second degree murder. God does not distinguish between having prior intent or murdering someone right on the spot. When you strike a man with the intent of injuring them, whether this is a festering desire for many years or something which suddenly manifests itself; the result should be the same: execution. All men who murder in our system should be executed. There is no excuse for ever allowing a murderer to live out their life on death row; allow them endless chances to appeal on technicalities (and, simultaneously, disallow appeals where there is reasonable indication that the convicted person is innocent); and it is even worse to allow them back on the street. In the way our society has degenerated, it would not be inhumane to sentence 13 and 14 year old murderers to death row and to carry out the sentence quickly. This is the first law to carry with it the death penalty presented in the Law.

"But whoever did not lie in wait but God let him fall into his hand, then I appoint for you a place which he may flee. [Ex. 21:13]

This is involuntary manslaughter—precise details are not given because there can be so many different circumstances; however, here, someone has killed another man without meaning to. God will set up cities of refuge were such a one can go to be protected from execution.

"However, if a man willfully attacks another to kill him in craftiness, you will take him from my altar that he may die. [Ex. 21:14]

When you hear of the refuge cities, the first thing you think of is what about the guilty murderer who flees to them. Therefore we have this ordinance: this is a person who planned out the murder and then escaped to a refuge city. This person is to be taken from God's altar and put to death. An occurrence of this is recorded in I Kings 2:28–34. Despite the sacredness of the altar, there is no clemency for a murderer. A criminal does not escape justice through some loophole in the Mosaic Law. We could learn from that.

This offense is so serious that it does not matter whether this child (or young man) injures either parent. Just the idea of striking one's very own parent is so abhorrent to God (as it should be to anyone) that such a person is executed.

"Whoever steals a man of the sons of Israel, whether he sells him or he is found in his hand, he will surely be put to death. [Ex. 21:16]

Although the Massoretic text does not include the phrase, of the sons of Israel, it is found in the western Aramaic and in the Syrian versions. This is kidnapping and forced slavery. This is the mandate which was broken when we originally had slavery in the United States.

[This is a note to myself: I originally translated this A man that steals, whether he sells it [the stolen property] or it is found in his possession—he shall be put to death. Several translations use the word him throughout this verse. The masculine singular suffix can be translated him or it. Context here, since we are speaking of what has been stolen, means that we will translate this as a neuter (the Greek has the three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter; but the Hebrew does not). In our English, we do very little genderizing; and certainly not what the Greeks and Hebrews did—apply a gender to every noun.]

A question that comes to me is why do these laws skip around? At first, they seemed to be organized; the first few verses dealt with the male Hebrew slave, the next few with the Hebrew female purchased; however, these last few verses are applications of the fifth and sixth commandments, yet they are not in any sort of order; they go S 6 5 S 5 6 S 6 S 6. I am not certain why most of the laws concerning slavery are not dealt with, then applications of honor your father and mother and then you will not murder. In any case, vv. 15 and 17 are applications of the fifth commandment. There is no mistaking the Bible's strong authoritarian bend and the absolute necessity for total respect afforded to one's parents. Here death is promised for those who even just curse their parents. However, in thinking back on several of my friends and relatives, those who were less disciplined and had less authority orientation (and bore disrespect for their parents) generally seemed to make poorer decisions in their lives; decisions whose effects seemed to last longer. Such a law here demands great authority orientation.

"When men quarrel an done strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but falls to his bed [Ex. 21:18]

Here we have a fight, the action is not premeditated, but it escalates to violence that could result in death; however, does not. At the end of this verse we have the Qal perfect of nâpal (ל ַפ ָנ) [pronounced naw-FAL] and it has a wide variety of applications. It generally means fall, however, in the Qal perfect (Gen. 4:6 15:12 Ex. 19:21, 33).

V. 19 does have a few problems and nuances to deal with. Owen has the person struck walking abroad as does The Emphasized Bible. Walk is in the Hithpael perfect; the Hithpael is the reflexive of the Piel, which is the intensive stem. The perfect tense is completed action. In the Hithpael perfect, the concept here is that the person walks to and fro, in this direction or that. It means to walk about. This is simply an indication that this person has fully recovered. Chûwts (ץח) [pronounced khoots] means outside, in the streets, outside of a tent, etc. The phrase with a staff could be misconstrued to indicate that there had been some permanent damage and theat he had to walk with a cane; however, it reads with his staff, which is par for the course. The sons of Israel wandered throughout the desert and almost every man carried a staff.

The Niphal perfect of nâqâh (ה ָק ָנ) [pronounced naw-KAWH] means to be empty, to clean. The Niphal perfect is passive completed action; in this stem and case it means acquitted. Then we have a very rarely used word: sheveth (ת ∵ב ∵ש) [pronounced SHEH-veth] found only in this passage, Prov. 20:3 and Isa. 30:7. It is closely related to the words rest, cease, and Sabbath. So what we are dealing with here is a portion of time where this person was unable to work; he had ceased from his labors, but not voluntarily. Loss of time expresses the idea quite well.

This verse ends with the Qal imperfect of give, put, set, a conjunction, and the Piel infinitive absolute and the 3rd person masculine singular Piel imperfect of the verb (used twice) râfâ (א ָפ ָר) [pronounced raw-FAW] which means heal.

"If he rises again and walks about outside [his tent] with his staff, he that struck him shall be acquitted. Only the loss of time [lit., cessation] he will [continue to] give and in his healing, he will be healed [or, only the loss of time he will continue to give even until he is completely healed]. [Ex. 21:19]

Obviously, there were some liberties taken with the translation of this verse (in almost anyone's translation, as a matter of fact). However, the meaning is quite clear. Both men are guilty of losing their tempers and entering into a brawl. However, the winner of this brawl is the one who makes restitution to the loser. For the time that it takes the person who was struck to recover, the winner will compensate him; and he will continue to compensate him until he is completely healed (this is the doubling of the verb heal).

"When a man strikes his slave with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he will certainly be avenged [lit., in vengence, he will be avenged]. [Ex. 21:20]

We have an incorrect view of slavery. Since the slaves that were in the United States were brought here against their will, sold by their own brothers, so to speak; and since there were aspects of this sort of slavery which were deplorable, we lose track of what slavery was in ancient times. At the very worst we have men who are kidnapped and sold into slavery (as alluded to in v. 16); however we alos have men who were placed into slavery because they were defeated in battle and we have men who willingly sold themselves into slavery. Hebrews, if you will recall, were to remain slaves for only seven years. This is not unlike being a journeyman or under the tutelage of another or voluntarily working for someone for seven years. There is not a lot of difference here. However, as property, God allowed some leeway as to the method of punishment. The verse ends with a doubling of the verb nâqam (ם ַק ָנ) [pronounced naw-KAM]. Nâqam means avenge, take vengeance. first in the Qal infinitive absolute and then in the Niphal imperfect. We find the Niphal imperfect of this verb in Judges 16:28 Isa. 1:24 Ezek. 25:15. It means in vengeance, he will be avenged. Certain punishment is required. This may not sound very enlightened, but when you realize that in the ancient world a slave was considered simply property, no more and no less, this elevated their position. God did not expect slaves to be manumitted nor for the Hebrews to suddenly abolish slavery; however, slaves were to be treated fairly and with compassion as fellow human beings. We are often born into a status or fall into a particular social position and it is not our Christian duty or anyone else's to remove us from this status and place us in another. It doesn't matter if we are rich or poor, slave or free. God's plan is not a change in social status, although that may occur as some people are blessed with material prosperity. God's plan for us is salvation and spiritual growth and those who fall into God's plan come from all social strata, all levels of ability, in all shapes and sizes. We are not born alike and believing in Jesus Christ does not automatically change us into cookie cutter Christians. What God does intend here in verses like these is to preserve the basic rights and volition of slaves that they might believe in Jesus Christ.

V. 21 requires a little Hebrew; not necessarily to undestand it, but to understand the translations that you read. It begins with an adverb and a hypothetical particle, meaning only if or notwithstanding, if; and we would have a better grasp if it is rendered if, however. The next phrase is literally a day or two days or a day and two days (the word day is used twice; once in the singular and once in the dual). This is followed by the 3rd person, masculine singular, Qal imperfect of ׳âmad (ד ַמ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-MAD] and it means stand, to take a stand, to stand up; in this context it means to recover.

We have the word punish again, but this time in the very rare stem the Hophal, which is the stem of compulsion. However, it carries with it the negative. The action of the verb is active and the object of the verb is passive. So, normally he would receive punishment, but the negative everses that.

"If, however, he recovers [in] a day or two, he shall not be punished; because his slave [is] his money. [Ex. 21:21]

The slave works for the master. When the master is foolish enough to strike his slave out of anger such that his slave is incapacitated for a few days, it is the master who loses money. The slave takes care of certain responsibilities and a slave generally is not superfluous in a household; that is, most Hebrews did not own slaves and those who did did not have a superabundance of them (particularly during the time that the Law was given to them). So when they caused their own slave to be out of commission for awhile, they paid through the lack of work which the slave normally would have accomplished. The expression the slave is his money is similar to expressions that we have today: time is money, that's money down the drain. Although the Bible is to be taken literally, there are simple phrases as this one which are obviously literary rather than literal.

V. 22 is a rugged verse being quoted by both anti-abortionists and pro-choice people who believe in the Bible. Many people will try to twist the Scripture to justify whatever it is that they believe in or whatever it is that they have done in the past. If people who are truly born again who were once draft-dodging hippies will approach the Bible with the assumption that we are to be totally nonviolent under any circumstance and that we are not to kill under any circumstance. Or they may have long hair or they may be homosexual and will twist clear Scripture around to support their personal sins, short comings or past mistakes. This is a grave error. If you are wrong, be a man and admit it—then move on. Life is too short to spend all of it out of fellowship because you are either too stupid or too hard-headed to hear and believe simple Bible doctrine. You will waste most of your Christian life stuck in neutral because you will not progress beyond a prejudice or two that you have carried over from you old life. By definition, much of our life was wrong prior to being saved. That is not a big deal. That is true of everyone. So if you do not like what the clear teaching of Scripture is, just believe it and live with it. I come across thing myself which do not fit in with the way I was raised or the beliefs which I once held. That is not the end of the world.

I mention all of these things because I have heard this verse quoted as the clincher for both sides of the abortion controversy. Now let's look at this verse:

We begin with two conjunctions. The waw conjunction w^e (׃ו) [pronounced w^e or v^e or waw]; the wâw (or vâwv) is pronounced like a v in modern Hebrew and sometimes like a w in ancient Hebrew. This is our waw conjunction and it simply means and; it continues the story, the list, the laws, etc. Kîy (י ̣) [pronounced kee] means that, when, because, since, for and it indicates causal relationships of all kinds, antecedent and consequent. Together this gives us and when. This is followed by the 3rd masculine plural, Niphal imperfect of the word nâtsâh (ה ָצ ָנ) [pronounced naw-TSAWH] and it means to struggle, to fight, to strive. Although the Niphal stem is generally the passive, it also expresses the individual effect upon the group when in the plural form as we have here. For this reason, we can confidently add the word together or with each other. The subject is men. This is followed by the waw conjunction and the Qal perfect of nâgaph (פ ַג ָנ) [pronounced naw-GAF] which is one of the words that we studied when we looked at the words for kill. This means strike, smite, hurt. The object of this verb is the substantive woman and the adjective pregnant.

"When men strive together and strike [or, hurt] a pregnant woman... [Ex. 21:22a]

The picture here is of two men who are caught up in mental attitude sins toward one another and are fighting so that they do not even notice their surroundings and they unintentionally strike or hurt a pregnant woman. In general, this applies to unintentional harm of a pregnant woman. Notice that these men have nothing against this woman, she just happens to be an innocent bystander. In their fight, however, they show total disregard for those around them. Our term for this today is reckless endangerment. There is no premeditated or intentional behavior toward those in their periphery, but there is also willful neglect of the safety of those in their periphery. This is like a teenage kid, being given a car too early in his maturity cycle (usually at age 16) and the first time he is out of the sight of his parents and has 100 yards of open space, he cranks it up to see what his car will do. This is will neglect of those around him. This is reckless endangerment of those around him. This is what these men were guilty of. They were not abortion doctors nor is this woman choosing to have an abortion.

Let's continue with the rest of the translation. We have the waw conjunction

and the 3rd person plural, Qal perfect of yâtsâ’ (א ָצ ָי) [pronounced yaw-TSAW] and it means go out, come out. The subject of this verb is the 3rd person masculine plural of yeled (ד ∵ל ∵י) [pronounced YEH-led] and it doesn't mean fruit (as per the KJV) but it means child, son, boy, youth. This is the same word used throughout Gen. 21 when speaking of Hagar's son and the same word used several times of Moses in Ex. 2. The 3rd singular feminine suffix is translated her. In the plural, this means offspring. This portion should be translated and her offspring comes out.

Then we have the waw conjunction and the negative and the 3rd masculine singular Qal imperfect of our old friend hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAW] and it means come to pass, happen, be. The subject is the rarely used word âçôwn (חס ָא) [pronounced aw-SONE] and it is found only in Gen. 42:4, 38 44:29 Ex. 21:22, 23. It is translated exclusively mischief n the KJV and, according to BDB, means evil, mischief, harm. The other passages deal with Jacob's concern over Benjamin, that harm may befall him. This is unspecified harm, but it could include death as Jacob was already all worked up over thinking that Joseph had died. The imperfect tense and the use of the word hâyâh means that this harm is not something which occurs immediately—that is, the causing of the pregnant woman to give birth is not the issue, but what occurs in the aftermath.

The result is that the mother gives birth prematurely; she, after a reasonable amount of time and the child, after a reasonabl eamount of time, are determined to be in satisfactory condition with no ill effects following the brawl.

We then have the doubling of the verb ׳ânash (ש ַנ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-NASH]. It means to assess a fine, to inflict a penalty and is found in this passage, Deut. 22:19 II Chron. 36:3 Prov. 17:26 21:11 22:3 27:12 Amos 2:8. Deut. 22:19 and II Chron. 36:3 both indicates that this can be a fine, however Prov. 21:11 and 22:3 imply that punishment other than a fine can be involved. Only here do we find this word doubled; first in the Qal infinitive absolute and secondly in the Niphal imperfect. I prefer the translation punished, because that includes the possibility of a fine without excluding other forms of punishment.

"...he shall certainly be punished [lit., in being punished, he will receive punishment or in being fined, he will be fined] according as the husband of the woman shall lay upon him and he will make restitution as the judges determine (or, via arbitration; or, by judicial proceedings); [Ex. 21:22c]

The rest of this verse is rather simple. He will make restitution is simply the Qal perfect of nâthan (ן ַת ָנ) [pronounced naw-THAN] and it means give, put, set. It is not strictly a word for paying a fine, but it does not exclude that notion. It has a wide variance of applications. Very likely this was strictly a monetary fine; however, the language is not that which would confine us to such an interpretation.

Notice how the court works. The husband of the woman will go into court and make specific demands, then the judge will examine the facts of the case, take into consideration the circumstances and render a judgment which certainly will be some kind of a punishment (and the doubling of the verb does not mean some little trivial thing such as the defendant shall pay damages in the amount of one dollar). There will be a fine or a punishment levied appropriate to the crime.

V. 23 will be easier because we have just covered most of the words found in this verse. It begins with the waw conjunction, uses the word âçôwn (חס ָא) [pronounced aw-SONE] again (harm) along with the Qal imperfect of hâyâh. Then we have the waw conjunction once again (which I believe would allow us to piece together this sentence in an if...then.. form) and we have the Qal perfect of nâthan once again and this time it is clearly not a simple payment of a fine. It is in the 2nd person masculine singular, Qal perfect, so it is no longer he but you to indicate the severtiy of the action and consequences. God is speaking to Moses, who is their first judge. I will take more liberties with the word nâthan and translate it assess. It is difficult to ascertain the exact meaning of the last word in the sentence. It is the prefixed preposition in, at, by and the word pheliliym (םי ̣ל ̣ל ׃פ) [pronounced pel-eel-eem(?)] and although it is definitely related to the Hebrew word for intervene, interpose it is guessed that this is the same word as pâlîyl (לי ̣ל ָ) [pronounced paw-LEEL], which means judge and is found only in Deut. 32:31 and Job 31:11. Our problem is not the vowel points but the yod which is missing. My educated guess is that it is a different but related word and I would tend to go with the NASB's rendering by arbitration, except that in the Hebrew, this is plural. Perhaps by judicial proceedings would be a reasonable rendering.

"And if any harm follows, then you will assess a life in exchange for a life; [Ex. 21:23]

This verse introduces the very famous phrase an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. This is perfect law. When a criminal commits a crime (even here where it is one of negligence rather than one of intention), he causes harm, financial, physical and emotional to the victim. The criminal does this because they can think of no one but themselves. They are on the throne in their hearts; they are the king of their destiny and the people in their periphery do not matter. The pain and distress that these other people are inconsequential when it comes to their own personal wants, desires and pleasures. This penalty shows the criminal just exactly what he has inflicted upon the victim. He feels the pain, discomfort, loss and fear that he imposed upon the victim. This is how it should be. A criminal is an arrogant person who can only understand by being treated in the same way that he has treated other people. His physical, emotional and financial well-being should be assaulted with the same neglect, carelessness and disregard that he showed in relationship to the victim(s). A white collar criminal who has defrauded hundreds of people of their saving should not be riding around in a BMW and living in a mansion. A criminal who has killed a woman for the use of her car, or has killed a store clerk for $45, should receive the death penalty without any thought to their childhood, their I.Q., their mental stability or the prodding of their friends. Just because a person comes from a poor environment or has a low I.Q., this does not excuse him from criminal activity. There are many people who have a low I.Q. and/or come from a poor environment who are moral, gentle people; and some of these are Christians who have believed in Jesus Christ and will spend eternity in heaven. However, a criminal is a criminal and he will earn that his behavior is wrong by facing the exact same loss that he caused others to face. This is the antithesis of barbarism. Liberal punishments, freedom based upon technicalities when a criminal is undeniably guilty of the crime that he has been charged with—these things are barbaric as the people who suffer the results of this mishandling of justice are innocent, law-abiding people. This sadly is a divine principle of law that we have lost sight of and our culture is going out of control because of it. The Old Testament has a place in our thinking and it is fully applicable to the time in which we live.

The last phrase is the first time that we have this particular phrase. It is the word four life, soul twice with the preposition tachath (ת ַח ַ) [pronounced tahk-ATH] between them. This preposition means in exchange for, in place of, return for. It has other meanings, but these are the most applicable. This passage is absolutely explicit because it is the first time this passage is given. It will go on for two more verses; however, when it is repeated in later portions of the Bible, it will not be repeated in its entirety as it is here. This passage gives us the principle, and whenever we need to refer back to this principle (as will occur in Lev. 24:19–20 Deut. 19:21), we will not need to quote this in its entirety. A few of the exchanges will suffice.

When a woman is caused to give birth prematurely, several things could occur and therefore we have a lot of generalities in this verse. She could die, the baby could die, either one could be injured; and everyone could survive just fine. Therefore, we have several choices as to how the injuries would be dealt with. However, this verse cannot be taken from its context to either support abortion or to declare it morally and legally wrong. Here the baby comes out, takes a breath, and dies. God filled this baby with life; regardless of when you think that life begins, it certainly began by the time the baby departed from the womb. Therefore, if the baby died, then the lives of the men would be required.

I guarantee you that if I could through some obscure Hebrew rule or vocabulary word use this verse to categorically that abortion was right or wrong, I would. However, God does not allow us to determine the morality of abortion based upon this lone verse. As I have previously stated my prejudice—in terms of rape and incest (which is generally a form of rape) abortion should be sought immediately and the woman should feel no guilt or shame. However, as retroactive birth control, I cringe at the thought of abortion. A Christian woman who is not fully convinced one way or the other by God's Word should not chose to have an abortion because it would make her life more convenient to have the baby at another time. In some cases, the actions preceding the pregnancy were sins and in other cases of a married couple who are just not ready for children, God is telling them that it is time and His timing is perfect. If you have studied David's solution to the Bathsheba problem—while one of his most faithful men was out on the front lines, David slept with his wife and impregnated her. David's solution was to kill the husband. He compounded his sins and by the time he named his sins to God, God made him pay fourfold. An abortion will not solve your problems any more than David's killing of the cuckolded husband solved his. You have sinned; you go to God in rebound, and you allow Him to direct you, not choosing that which is convenient as automatically God's will.

"An eye in exchange for an eye, a tooth in exchange for a tooth, a hand in exchange for a hand, a foot in exchange for a foot; [Ex. 21:24]

If you would rather, we could have translated this as: If any harm comes to pass, then you will appoint life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. There is no indefinite article in the Hebrew as there is in the English so the lack of a definite article sometimes is the same as our lack of a definite article and their lack of a definite article sometimes corresponds to our use of the indefintie article (which is more complicated in the Greek because not only do they lack the indefinite article, but the concept of their definite article and ours is almost totally opposite).

"A burn in exchange for a burn, a wound in exchange for a wound, a stripe in exchange for a stripe. [Ex. 21:25]

The last two nouns in this verse are the word chabbûwrâh (ה ָר ַח) [pronounced khab-boo-RAHW] and it means stripe, blow and is so translated; although it is also translated bruise, welt; this is the word found in Isa. 53:5.

There just is not a better or simpler or more general form as a code of law on which ours should be based. Our system of justice has become complex and unwieldy. We have too many people who are innocent incarcerated fro crimes they did not commit; we have far too many guilty people who are freed on technicalities which have absolutely nothing to do with their guilt or their innocence but oft times eliminate concrete evidence which would lead to their guilt; we have some police officers and district attorneys who intend to indict and get a guilty plea no matter what; and we have far too many criminals whose punishment in no way fits the crime. It is an absolute tragedy when God's Word is so absolutely clear and sets up a system of justice which is fair, consistent, simple and appropriate. The further we move away from this system the deeper we fall into a crime-ridden society.

"When a man strikes the eye of his slave or the eye of his female slave and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free for the eye's sake. [Ex. 21:26]

Although this could be cleaned up somewhat by way of translation, the gist is easy. Without a word to how the slave was procured, or without a word against slavery, the slave is manumitted when physically disabled.

"If he knocks out [lit., causes to fall] the tooth of his slave or the tooth of his female slave then he will let him go free for his tooth's sake. [Ex. 21:27]

What is unusual here is the emphasis upon the rights of slaves. A slave in the ancient world was property (as was, in many cases, a wife). That is not the impact of these laws; God looks out for those in al social classes. What we have here is a master who does not deserve to have slaves because he maltreats them. He should not own slaves because he cannot control himself or them without resorting to violence. See the Doctrine of Slavery—not finished yet!! Today, this would be a company which knowingly endangers its employees (these would be risks that they employees are unaware of). Such a company does not deserve to have employees.

"When an ox gores a man or a woman so that he dies, the ox will be stoned and its flesh will not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear [exempt from punishment]. [Ex. 21:28]

Today we have people who own certain breeds of dogs who have attacked people unprovoked. This would not apply when an animal is kept in a back yard and someone climbs the fence to get into the back yard. This is where the animal is out running free and attacks someone.

"But if the ox had a predilection for goring in the past

and the owner had been notified but has not kept it in and it kills a man or a woman, the ox will be stoned and its owner also will be executed. [Ex. 21:29]

The adjective which I translated predilection for goring is only found here and v. 36, but the translation is reasonable. Part of v. 29 has been freely translated, but its sense is clear. Someone owns an animal that is dangerous; it has attacked people before, yet the owner does not make certain that the animal is destroyed or carefully caged, then the owner is just as liable for what the animal does as the animal is. It is unfortunate that we don't have these laws on the books today. There are people who keep dangerous dogs who do not properly control them; they would be more apt to do so if they faced an execution for what their animals do. I had a friend whose two-year old child was bitten in the face by their dog; immediately the dog was put to sleep, as it should have been. That is following the Biblical principles set forth in this passage.

V. 30 is an odd verse because in it we have a couple of words which often are translated by the same words in English, but are different words in the Hebrew. The hypothetical particle is followed by kôpher (ר ∵פֹ) [pronounced KO-fer] and it means ransom, price of a life. After ransom, we have oft-times used verb shîyth (תי ̣ש) [pronounced sheeth] and it means place, set, put. It is in the Hophal, which is the causative passive—so this ransom is placed up him or decreed against him. The end of that phrase should be translated upon him or against him. The errant owner's responsibility is delineated next. We have the Qal perfect of nâthan (ן ַת ָנ) [pronounced naw-THAN], which also means put, set and it means give. We have almost a half-dozen words which are all translated ransom, this one being pidyôwn (ןי ׃ד ̣) [pronounced pid-YOWN] and it is found in Num. 3:49, 51 Psalm 49:8. It is in the construct, so the noun to which it is connected can be translated with an apostrophe s, or it can read a ransom of. After life (literally, soul), which has the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix, meaning his, we have the prefixed preposition kîy (meaning that, for, when, because), we have all, the whole and the relative pronoun. So far this gives us, if a ransom is assessed against him, then he will give a ransom of his life, that the entirety of which... The verse ends with assessed against him.

"If a ransom is assessed against him, then he will give a ransom of his life [lit., soul] whatever is laid upon him. [Ex. 21:30]

It is possible that restitution is also required; in face, I am uncertain here whether restitution is in addition to the owner being executed or instead of; in either case, the victim's family requires some restitution and said restitution is agreed upon by the judge.

"If it gores a son or gores a daughter according to this same judgement so it shall be dealt to him. [Ex. 21:31]

If this animal gores a son or daughter, and the owner is aware of the problem already due to previous incidents, then he will be responsible for the damages assessed against him. In this situation, the life of the owner does not seem to be required but he may lose a great deal of money.

"If the ox gores a [male] slave or a female [slave], 30 shekels of silver will be given to their master and the ox will be stoned. {Ex. 21:32]

Here we have a set price agreed upon for the injury caused to a slave. The slaves are not compensated; their masters are.

"And if a man leaves open a pit or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it and an ox falls into it or an ass, then the owner of the pit will make it good; he will make financial restitution [lit., restore (or, return) money] to its owner and the dead beast will be his. [Ex. 21:33–34]

Here we have personal responsibility for what we have done. The person at fault here is someone who has set up a potentially hazardous situation. To apply this to today, it obviously does not need to be a pit. A person could leave a car up on a jack for several days, they might leave a swimming pool gate open for several hours. This is neglect of one person which, in this case, causes the destruction of property which belongs to another. The person guilty of neglect must make restitution and he is allowed to keep the animal that he killed.

"When one man's ox hurts another's so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the price of it; furthermore, they will divide the dead beast. [Ex. 21:35]

Here, no one is really at fault; however, one man loses his ox and the other does not. Under these circumstances, there is not a guilty party—simply they both share in the loss. The live ox is sold and they split that and the dad ox is divided evenly and they take that home. One of the unfortunate shortcomings of our court system is that there is very little place for both parties sharing equally in the blame. No-fault insurance is similar to this and counter suits are similar, however.

"Or if it is known that the ox has a predilection to gore in the past [lit., yesterday, three days ago] and his owner has not kept him in, then he will pay ox for ox and the dead beast will be his." [Ex. 21:36]

What has happened here is the ox which killed the other ox had a tendency to do this and the owner was fully aware of this predilection; the owner of the live ox is determined to be the guilty party and must make full restitution to the one who lost his ox.

Obviously, these laws were not confined only to oxen. They had application to all livestock in general and these laws can further be extrapolated for application to our day and time. What is important that after we study all of the laws found in the Pentateuch that we realize that most of the laws on our books have nothing to do with these laws or their application; this means, that we would be better off with most of our laws repealed.

Introduction: Chapter 22 continues with property rights and related laws and it legislates morality, of all things. Most of the laws carry with them penalties up until v. 21. At that point we have particular regulations for the Jews but we do not have in place an appropriate penalty to be levied by the judicial system. Here, as before, the Ten Commandments have provided a framework upon which hang these laws.

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it or sells it, five oxen will he pay for an ox and four sheep [will he pay] for a sheep. [Ex. 22:1 (21:37 in Hebrew Bible)]

This verse rightfully belongs in a section different from chapter 21 because it deals with property rights whereas the previous verses dealt with injuries. Notice here that we have departed from an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; stealing requires payback plus interest. If only this could be applied today—we have so many white collar criminals who, because they don't carry a gun and walk into a convenience store and demand $80 from the till, receive very little punishment for the money which they have extorted, embezzled, defrauded. They should pay back as the Bible demands, five times for grand larceny and four times for petty larceny. Here their house should be sold, along with their car and their salary attatched, if necessary, for the rest of their natural lives; and this should not be expunged by bankrupcy. Similarly, there are thieves who should be locked up until they can earn enough money to (1) pay for their stay in Jail and (2) to reimburse their victim(s) four to five-fold. A criminal cannot do this while being paid a few dollars a day; he should receive a reasonabl ewage according to his work output and the value of his services. Those who refuse to work or are an escape risk and a security risk, should rot in jail until they are ready to tow the line. However, notice that there is no jail time prescribed by this verse. The thief pays four to five times as much as he has stolen and then he is off. Also, there is nothing said here about a thief who is poor and hungry getting a break (such robberies certainly make up a very small minority of the crime of today).

"If the thief is discovered in the breaking in and is struck so that he dies, [there will be] no blood(s) [shed] for him. [Ex. 22:2 (22:1 in the Hebrew Bible)]

There is no nonesense here about whether the intruder startled, frightened or threatened the owner of the home. When a thief is caught within someone else's home, we are allowed to detain him, protect ourselves and /or protect our loved ones in any way we can, including executing the criminal on the spot. However, the next verse seriously modifies this verse. The criminal is in this verse discoverd to be breaking into the house and it is possibly night (see v. 3) and/or the owner of the house is startled and surprised and possibly threatened.

"If the sun has risen upon him, [there will be] blood(s) [shed] for him. He will make restitution; if he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft. [Ex. 22:3 (22:2)]

Are we merely saying that it is daytime or are we saying that the thief is outside the home in the daytime? V. 2 did not say anything about this breaking in occuring at night. Had it said that, then the question of when can you kill an intruder and when can you not would be easier to answer. V. 3 begins with the hypothetical particle if and the subject of the sentence is sun. Risen is the 3rd person feminine singular (sun is in the feminine voice), Qal perfect of zârach (ח ַר ָז) [pronounced zaw-RAKH] and it is a word specifically for the rising of the sun (see Deut. 33:2 II Kings 3:22 Psalm 112:4 Ecc. 1:5). The perfect tense means that this is a completed action. The imperfect voice would place the time in the morning as the sun is rising. How the phrase stopped here or had the previous verse carried with it the descriptor at night, then we would certainly be speaking only of daylight. However, we have the preposition ’al (ל ַא) [pronounced al] is a preposition denoting motion to or direction towards something. The sun has risen in the direction of or towards the criminal. The implication here is that there is no danger; no one is startled, the criminal may have even already left the property. This means that we are not allowed to summarily execute the criminal out of our mental attitude sins toward him if there is no danger to ourselves or to our family.

When you uses an English translation, you must realize that there is a certain amount of commentary or interpretation that goes with it. Initially when I first read portions of the NIV, I was extremely impressed; however, there are some verses which are strictly an interpretaton of what is there as opposed to a translation, and this is one of them. V. 3a in the NIV reads: But if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. The alternate reading is: But if he strikes him after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. There is no phrase in the Hebrew in this verse for either it happens after or he strikes him after. To the NIV, the difference is between daylight and dark; to the author of The Emphasized Bible, the difference is between being caught in the act or not.

Therefore, in this situation, he is possibly outside, it is definitely daylight, and there is no danger to the members of one's household. It is very poossible that this is well after the crime. The owner may not execute him for his crime. There is no vigilantism allowed when the owner's family is safe and the criminal is not breaking into the house and it is daytime. However, he is to pay for his crime and note the marvelous way of dealing with this. If he has stolen out of lust and has possessions, he must pay back the person he stole from according to the law. However, if he has stolen out of need (or, has no means to restore that which he has taken) then God provideds another out for him; he is not placed into confinement, but he is placed into slavery. As a slave, he will have his basic necessities taken care of and, from the laws we have already studied, will be free to go in seven years.

Why is it not exactly clear here? God the Holy Spirit knows the hearts of men. He could have easily written in v. 2 the qualifier that the thief was breaking in at night yet He did not. He could have given a list of twenty other laws to describe exactly when we can use deadly force and when we cannot. However, God the Holy Spirit did not do that. Here is an important point to be learned: you do not make a law for less than one percent of the population or for less than one percent of the occurrences. Part of the purpose of a judicial system is to deal with grey areas where it might be daytime, yet the thief breaks in, startling or frightening the occupants. He might be weiliding a weapon. The judge must decide under what circumstances the killing of the criminal took place and which law it falls under. For instance if today a kick burglar suddenly invades your home, day or night, you certainly act quickly and kill if necessary. However, if they are out the door, your family is safe, or if you have detained them at gunpoint, then you are not allowed to act as judge and executioner, even if you would like to.

The gist is that we are allowed to protect our home using reasonable force appropriate to the situation; and in some cases, that would involve killing the thief. However, we are not allowed to act as judge and executioner if the situation is under control nor are we allowed to act as a vigilante and find and execute the criminal later.

"If the stolen beast is found in his possession [lit., hand], whether it is an ox or an ass or a sheep [and it is] alive, he will pay double. [Ex. 22:4 (22:3)]

He has not killed and eaten what he has stolen; he has not sold it; he still possesses it. Under these circumstances, where the stolen property is returned intact and in perfect condition, the thief must pay back double of what he has stolen. Again, these are wonderful laws and something we unfortunately do not apply today. For most people who begin a life of crime by robbing, often the first offense is probabition. Restitution should be a part of the sentencing of every thief.

"When a man cause a field or a vineyard to be grazed over or lets lose his beast and it feeds in another man's field, he will make restitution [with] the best in his own field and in his own vineyard. [Ex. 22:5 (22:4)]

This has wide application to today's business enviornment. When one business encroaches on another, such as, one business dumps chemicals into a river, causing other businesses which depend upon that river for clean water to suffer, there must be restitution made. One can even extrapolate copyright laws from this verse. One person writes a song a book or a poem and it is stolen by someone else for monetary gain—it is exactly the same principle. When restitution is made, any inequality in terms of quality and quantity should be in favor of the person who suffered loss. This is why the field is replaced with the best of the guilty party.

"When fire breaks out and catches in thornbushes so that the stacked grain, or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he that started the fire will make full restitution. [Ex. 22:6 (5)]

Here we have unpremeditated destruction of the property of another; restitution is made for that which is lost. A fire is the illustration given here, but not the only application. Although one source said that thornbushes were used as hedges in the ancient world (see Prov. 15:19 Isa. 5:5 Micah 7:4), it was also likely that the thorns just grew up side by side with the wheat. During harvest time, they were even drier than the wheat. Proper care and diligence was expected as the grain was very dry prior to reaping and there was always a danger of fire. Israel's enemies were aware of this and occasionally caused fires to intentionally weaken those who depended upon the crops (Judges 6:1–6 15:4–5). After the harvest and before the autumn rains, these thorns and the weeks were often then burned to clear the land and to provide a fertilizer of sorts for the next growing season.

"If a man delivers money or goods to his neighbor to keep and it is stolen out of the man's house, then, if the thief is found, he will pay double. [Ex. 22:7 (6)]

"If the thief is not found and the owner of the house will come near to God whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's goods. [Ex. 22:8 (7)]

The owner of the house has offerred, for whatever reason, to take responsibility for the goods of another. These are stolen and not recovered. The owner of the house goes before God (a judge representing God) and is judged and will pay according to what the judge determines. We have seen previous that when we find God in this verse that we have a spiritual parallel. Israel was entrusted with the gospel and with God's Word. Israel was to teach God's Word to the world—Israel was a client nation to God. A number of things will happen with Israel and God's Word: they will misplace it, they will guard it, they will disregard it. God's Word belongs to God and given to Israel for safekeeping. At some point in time, Israel will be scattered for her failures—not so much in the realm of morality but in their responsibility to keep and teach God's Word.

"For every matter of transgression, whether it is for ox, for ass, for sheep, for clothing or for any ind of lost thing of which one says this is it the cases of both parties shall come before God and he whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbor. [Ex. 22:9 (8)]

Again we have the judges acting in place of God, making these decisions. They will hear the facts and try determine who is the negligent party—the one who entrusted the neighbor in the first place or the neighbor who kept the goods. What spiritual parallel is found here? Whether a country fulfills its obligation as a client nation to God and whether the nations around it respond are two different issues. Noah taught for 120 years before the floods came and his only converts were his sons, wife and his sons' wives. Noah was absolutely faithful. However, his teaching of God's Word made no impact on an unsaved world. So though Israel is entrusted with the Word and even though other nations may not respond; this is not always the fault of Israel.

"When a man delivers to his neighbor an ass or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep and it dies or is hurt or is taken captive without anyone seeing it; [Ex. 22:10 (9)]

This is a goofy place to cut off a verse. We are dealing with a similar situtation. One neighbor has entrusted another with a piece of property and it becomes damaged or ruined (in this case, what we are speaking of is animals); whether compensation is due needs to be determined. There are various reasons for doing this: (1) animals are left for breeding purposes; (2) animals are kept for safekeeping, for feeding, for some special service; (3) and by application, this can be anything which is lent, entrusted, given for safekeeping to another. This is not a matter of the animals being lent as that will be covered in v. 14 and following.

V. 11 begins with the feminine construct of oath (the construct means oath of). Then we have our Lord's name, Yahweh without any intervening preposition. This is why we do not add in the words by or before.

"[Then] an oath of Yahweh will be between them both whether he has not put his hand to the property of his neighbor and the owner shall accept the oath and he will not make restitution. [Ex. 22:11 (10)]

An obvious and distinct possibility is the neighbor who has been entrusted could be negligent or could have actually sold or traded the item to someone else. Here, the circumstances are not clear to the injured party. Under these circumstances, the person in whose care the item was, made an oath by the Lord God that he was not negligent and this oath will have to suffice the injured party (the one who suffered the loss). Do we have any application today? Certainly, today the person who suffered the loss would often bring his neighbor into court and sue for his loss, whether the neighbor was at fault or not. In a situation where the fault cannot be determined without doubt, the best the court can do is have to entrusted person give the injured person an oath of innocence before God.

"However, if it is stolen from him, he will make restitution to its owner. [Ex. 22:12 (11)]

When someone has entrusted you with an article of value, it is up to you to take better care of that than you would your own possessions. This would involve taking better care of it to insure that even theft would not occur. In the event that it does, the item must be replaced. This was primarily applied to shepherd who fed the flocks. How would any of this apply today? A stock broker or a fund manager for a mutual fund today has things which are of value to us. If he exercises ordinary care in his investing, then the person who entrusted him with the funds must bear whatever the market does. However, if the stock broker or fund manager does not exercise reasonable caution and diligence, then he should be subject to the same loss the client suffered.

"If it is torn by beasts, let him bring it as evidence for what has been torn [and] he will not make restitution. [Ex. 22:13 (12)]

This is interesting where a household is held partially responsible for a theft but not for something which is destroyed by that which parallels natural catastrophe. There were similar laws and similar traditions which go at least back to the time of Jacob (see Gen. 31:39)

"And when a man borrows [or, asks] from his neighbor and it is hurt or dies, his owner not being with it, he will make full restitution. [Ex. 22:14 (13)]

In this situation, a man has borrowed the animal from his neighbor (and this applies to anything that we would borrow from someone else) and the animal suffers harm. God requires that we make full restitution regardless of the reason for the harm done to the animal.

"But if the owner [is] with it, he will not have to make restitution; if it [the animal] [was] rented, [then] it came with its compensation. [Ex. 22:15 (14)]

If the owner is there at the time the naimal is injured or dies, it is back under the owner's care. The secod phrase is a tad bit more difficult to render. It begins with an hypothetical particle, the 3rd person masculine singular pronoun and the descriptive adjective sâkîyr (רי ̣כ ָ) [pronounced saw-KEER] for hired. Whereas this word usually stands for a hired laborer, here it means rented. Then is inferred by the hyppothetical particle and it is followed by the 3rd person, masculine singular, Qal perfect of bôw’ (א) [pronounced bo] and it means come, go; the preposition in, at, by, with; and the substantive masculine singular with a 3rd person masculine suffix of sâkâr (ר ָכ ָ) [pronounced saw-KAWR] and it means its wages, its rental amount, its compensation. What is eing said here is that this was not borrowed but rented and the rental amount should cover damages. Sice they did not have insurance, the implication was to charge enough under these circumstances to take into account the risk invovled.

"And when a man persuades a virgin who is not engaged and lies with her, he will definitely provide a dowry for her [lit., in giving a dowry, he will give a dowry] and make her his wife [lit., to him to wife]. [Ex. 22:16 (15)]

To indicate a change in subject matter, the particles are changed. Throughout a previous dozen or so verses, most of them began with if; this one begins with and when. In the KJV, NIV, Owen's and the NASB, there is not a great deal of consistancy afforded these particles and connectives here. Even Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible was not entirely consistant, although it was better than the rest. I have tried to give them a consistant rendering, but I may have missed a couple of them. The Hebrew has a change of particles in order to grab us and say new topic.

Pâthâh (ה ָת ָ) [pronounced paw-THAW] means open. It is in the Piel imperfect; the Piel is intensive and it means entice, deceive, persuade, allure; we find it in the Piel in such diverse contexts as here, Judges 14:15 II Sam. 3:25 I Kings 22:20–22 Prov. 1:10 Jer. 20:7 (where Yahweh is the subject). The most consistant rendering which I can come up with is persuade. Deception does not need to be involved here. Virgin is b^ethûwlâh (ה ָלת ׃) [pronounced beth-oo-LAW] and it means virgin; it is not the same word as we find in Isa. 7:14

. ’Âras ( ַר ָא) [pronounced aw-RAS] is found only in the Piel or the Pual (the passive of the Piel) and it means betroth, engaged to be married. In this instance, this is in the 3rd person, singular feminine, Pual perfect; meaning, she stands engaged, she has been engaged, she is engaged. This does not indicate that she is necessarily even engaged to this persuasive young man.

Lie is the Qalperfect of shâkav (ב ַכ ָש) [pronounced shaw-KAV] is the simple word for sleep, lie down and it is found several hundred times in the Old Testament. However, combined with the preposition with and the 3rd person singular suffix, it means to have sexual relations with. The consequences are given by the verb mâhar (ר ַה ָמ ) [pronounced maw-HAR] used twice here and only here (although it might be in Psalm 16:4, but the text is dubious there). Luckily, this is close enough to a noun for the purchase price of a wife (found in Gen. 34:12 Ex. 21:17 I Sam. 18:25) to indicate that this means to pay a dowry toward this woman to make her his wife. Since this is so rare today, I should explain that a dowry is money, goods or estate brought generally by the wife into marriage (the father of the bride most often provided this). This degenerated into a hope chest and now the woman just bills her parents for the wedding and the down payment on their first house. It worked both ways, however; a man might bring in money, gifts or an estate in order to persuade her parents to allow her to marry him. This verb is first found in the Qal infinitive construct and then in the Qal imperfect. LIterally, it reads in providing a dowry he will give a dowry. The doubling of the verb makes this a certain event. This verse wends with a preposition affixed to the 3rd masculine singular suffix (to him) followed by the same preposition and the word for wife (translated to wife). It was customary for the man to give a rather substantial gift or gifts for the bride and her family to indicate his sincerity and his financial strength (or, financial backing when the gift came not directly fr the husband but from his father). Back in Gen. 24:53, Abraham sends by servant a gifts on behalf of Isaac for Rebecca. And the servant brought out articles of silver and articles of gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah; he also gave precious things to he brother and to her mother.

The point of all of this is that those who engage in premarital sex should get married. If they do not have the courage to marry, then they should not engage in premarital sex. Any young man who is faced with having to marry the woman he seduces would think twice about doing such a thing. Any woman faced with having to spend the rest of her life with such a man would give second thoughts to this also. The intent is for a married couple to have had relations with no one other than each other. This is a kind of a bond unfortunately almost unknown today. I read a letters to the lovelorn column where the columnist likened premarital sex to trying on a pair of shoes until you find a pair that fit. How horribly degenerate, as if promiscuous predilections and a temporarily good sex life were the ingredients to a good relationship. This is foolish. God's Word, as has been mentioned, everywhere encourages young men and women to be chaste until marriage. However, God is not foolish; He realizes that some will not listen to Him. Therefore, God gives us here what is the inferior plan B approach: do not have sex until you are married; however, if you do, then marry that person. It is this continual trying on of shoes which has confused men and women concerning the identification of their right person. Pre-marital sex causes a scar tissue to form over our souls making soul identification difficult if not impossible. How many men have met and essentially ignored their right woman because they were having a torid affair with some woman? How many women, emotionally entangled with some lover, have bypassed the man that God designed for themin eternity past? How many people have rejected the person designed by God for them because they were virtuous and would engage in premarital sex with them? How many of you rejected that person because they did not sexually turn you on immediately and you had to have an animal magnitism or someone who looked like a celebrity? How sad that you could throw away 50 years of bliss to try on some tattered pair of shoes that you can't walk in just because they shine?

"If her father absolutely refuses [lit., in refusing, refuses] to give her to him, he will pay money [lit., wiegh out silver]—the equivalent to the marriage present for virgins. [Ex. 22:17 (16)]

Women have been known to become pregnant in order to catch a man or to keep a husband; they have also been known to have premairtal sex in order to engage a man to whom they are attracted. Here, a man can do the same. He can be attracted to a woman, yet, despite his own shortcomings (which she will not see until they are married), he is able to seduce this young woman possibly even with the intent of marrying her (in high school, I have seen the oddest pairings of young people that you could ever imagine—children who are so ill-suited for one another that it borders on being humorous). Often it is a slightly older young man who has no prospects and no future and he seduces a woman who has both. She is so dazzled by the fact that he is a year or two older, moderately attractive and paying attention to her that she neglects to notice that he is a total loser. Here is where the fathe comes in. He recognizes the degeneracy of her young man and even if his daughter is now deflowered by him (and sometimes because of that fact) he refuses to allow her to marry this jerk. Even under this scenario, this man is not completely in the clear. Seducing this young woman will require that he cough up a suitable amount of money which will become a part of her dowry when she gets married.

This is a sudden change in topic, brought out by a sudden change of sentence structure. Sorceress is the feminine singular, Piel participle Hebrew word kâshaph (ף ַש ָ) [pronounced kaw-SHAF] and it means practice sorcery, inchant, whisper a spell; it is more than fooling around with artifacts of witchcraft; it is communion with the demons of Satan. It is being in contact with and being subservient to with the unseen demonic forces. I realize that there are great numbers of peple who view demons as nonexistant. It was said and even quoted in a movie that Satan's greatest feat was to convince peple that he did not exist. Most peple with any kind of sensory powers recognize that we are living in a degenerate, evil world. Furthermore, we all know that there is a tremendous unseen reality in just the mentality and the souls of the people on this earth. Even most people would agree that there are presences which do not have a human form; however, we do not want to call these presences demons or Satan; if possible, we often think of them as departed persons whose souls have hung around. Out in this world there is a whole unseen invisible army of all that is evil, vicious and repugnant. Such demons may present themselves as ministers of light and mouth all the proper words about world peace and loving everyone, but they are as filthy and as degenerate as we could ever imagine and to them we are no more than pawns. If they can achieve a small goal through our extended suffering and pain, they would do so without blinking. If they could bring about our deaths because we represent the God Who created the universe, they would. It is only the fact tht we have a great wall of fire about us; that God exercises protection and guidance that we are not even remotely aware of which keeps us safe from direct demonic attack.

Throughout the ages of man, demons have changed their tact and the concentration of their effort. At one time, they assumed bodily forms and took the women of the earth to themselves to propagate a race of half-demon, half-man creatures (popularized and distorted by mythology). God disallowed this contact so they indwelt and influenced people (we see this particularly in the first century ad); and now, their influence is less supernatural and less overty evil (which is a part of Satan's scheme to be less noticeable). However, in the times of the Old Testament and the New Testament, demons made a concerted, very overt attack upon man, exchanging promises and little nothings in order to direct the life of individuals for incarnate evil. These are the people, who allow their bodies to be used by the demons, who were to be put to death. See the Doctrine of Demonism—not finished yet!! Also, see Deut. 18:9–14.

Note that this verse is found between vv. 18 and 20 (a rather deep point). V. 18 deals with demonic invovlment and v. 20 deals with idolatry (which is demon worship). This is not found here by accident. Sexual invovlement with animals is demonic. The demons coming to earth and fornicating with human females is analogous to our fornicating with animals. Sometimes the demons indwell wither the person or the animal and engage in sexual relations. In any case it is degenerate and evil and demon-influenced. A person like this cannot have a normal sex life and will destroy the female that they marry with their degeneracy. God's punishment is swift and sure. Although Gen. 6 did not portray copulation between angels and animals, we have myths of half-men, half animals (satyrs, for instance, known for the sexual proclivities), indicating that it is possible that not only this occurred, but there were resulting offspring. The NIV points out that ancient myths and epics whic came out of Babylon and Canaan depict fornication between pagan gods, demigods and animals.

"Whoever sacrifices to any god except to Yahweh will be utterly destroyed. [Ex. 22:20 (19)]

Utterly destroyed is an unusual word in the Hebrew; it is the Hophil imperfect of châram (ם ַר ָח) [pronounced khaw-RAM] and it means basically two very different things: to utterly destroy (Num. 21:2 Joshua 2:10 8:26 Isa. 11:15 34:2) and devoted to (Lev. 27:28–29 Ezra 19:5 Micah 4:13); the latter useage being found in only those four verses. This seems like we have two different words, but the key here is that some things were dedicated unto God by completely destroying them. Some animal sacrifices burnt on the altar were completely burnt up. In this way, they were both utterly destroyed and devoted to God.

Although context places this as a responsibility of the nation Israel to be applied to Jews, God would have the Jews destroy entire tribes and nations of idolatrous peoples because their idolatry was indicative of their demon involvment. And when the Lord God delivers them before you and you will strike them, then you will completely destroy them. You will make no covenant with them and show no grace to them...you will tear down their altars and smash their pillar and take down their Asherim

, and burn their graven images with fire (Deut. 7:2, 5b; see also Num. 21:2–3 Deut. 3:6).

Here we have a definite change from today. At this time, this nation was a Theocracy, a nation ruled directly by God. It was a client nation to God also, responsible for the preservation and dissemination of His Word internally and throughout the world. There will never be a nation in the church age which is a Theocracy therefore this commandment cannot be followed today. In fact, it is important for a free nation to preserve freedom of religion so that God's Word can be taught and people can be evangelized.

"You will not wrong or oppress a stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. [Ex. 22:21 (20)]

The Jews just came out of a land where they were oppressed, they were taken into slavery and treated cruelly. Even thoug God has give approval to the institution of slavery, he has not given tacit approval to cruelty and vicious treatment of those who ae not in Israel. This same word describes the treatment by Egypt of the Jews (Ex. 3:9—the verb and the noun cognate are both found in this verse).

The 2nd person, masculine plural, Piel imperfect of ‛ânâh (ה ָנ ָע) [pronounced aw-NAWH] means to debase, afflict, browbeat, humble, mishandle; I tend to like the rendering mishandle here (and elsewhere where we have the Piel of ‛ânâh) because it is applicable here. These are the helpless people; the ones without a voice, without someone to fight for them, the weak and the poor. They do not have to be directly abused by the Jews; they need only be neglected or uncared for; left to go hungry or left to go homeless. This is not as much an active afflicting but more of a passive one in this case. This is one of the rare times when we have the 2nd person plural and not the 2nd person singular. The reason for this is God is directing the nation Israel as to how to treat the helpless as opposed to explaining to individuals what is right and what is wrong.

"If you do mishandle [or, mistreat] them, and they call out to me, I will definitely hear [lit., in hearing, I will hear] their voice. [Ex. 22:23 (22)]

Call out and voice aare cognates of one another. The KJV usually translates them both cry; which is a very good one-word, consistant translation, albeit unfortunately dated. We are back to the 2nd person singular; God will hear the helpless who call out to Him when they are afflicted by those who are stronger. There are men who actively prey upon older people. Some mug them because they are not strong enough to fight back; some steal away their livetime savings through various schemes and cons. God hears them when they call to Him. Although this is a part of the Law, it is also a promise to any helpless person who calls upon Him.

"And my wrath will burn and I will kill you with the sword and your wives will become widows and your children fatherless. [Ex. 22:24 (23)]

This is a promise made directly to Israel; if they chose to mistreat the helpless, then God would kill their strong. This is a promise made directly to Israel, but the principle is the same for all time—if the helpless are maltreated, they are to call on God and He will avenge them. However, when you take a matter to the supreme court, you must leave it there in God's hands.

"If you lend money to any to my people to any to the poor with you, you will not be to him like a creditor; you will not exact from him [or, place on him] usury. [Ex. 22:25 (24)]

This is interesting—fellow Jews who were poor and in need were not to be lent money as a high yield monetary investment. Those who lent money were to not charge exorbitant interest rates to the poor. They all belonged to the same God. Under times of financial stress and vicious persecution, we see that the Christians in Jerusalem binded together and shared all the material things that they had with one another (Acts 4:32–37). Israel under God was to be compassionate toward their poor. Money was to be lent without interest and the helpless were not to be mistreated.

It is possibel to see this verse as prohiting the charge of any interest to the poor, but I do not think that is the gist. See the Doctrine of Interest—not finished yet!!

"If you take your neighbor's garment [as] a solemn pledge [lit., in taking a pledging, you take a pledge], you will restore it to him before the sun goes down. [Ex. 22:26 (25)]

What has happened here is that you have taken as a pledge a cloak or a garment from a neighbor (which, in all of these laws, is a fellow Jew), then it must be returned to him before that night, before he needs it. The NIV points out that only the poorest of the poor had only their coat to offer as collateral.

"For that is his only covering; it is his mantle for his body. In what else will he sleep? And if he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am compassionate. [Ex. 22:27 (26)]

A cloak or a mantle was a necessity for those who lived in the cold weather. In the country, it was thick wool which was wrapped around the body with a seam at the shoulders and arm holes. This is the kind we are speaking of here. There was also the more formal cloak, which was similar to a losse drssing gown with wide sleeve and designed for warmer weather. It was a luxury item when made out of silk.

When I was much younger and knew nothing about the Bible, I was given the impression that the God of the Old Testament was much different from the God of the New Testament; that the Old Testament God was vengeful and exacting. However, as you can see in these laws, a part of God's purpose is to protect the weak from the preying upon by the strong. God in the Old Testament as well as the New is a compassionate God Who hears us when we call on Him.

"You will not curse God; or curse [or, execrate or imprecate] a ruler of your people. [Ex. 22:28 (27)]

Most translations tell us that we will not revile God. This is the negative plus the Piel imperfect of qâlal (ל ַל ָק) [pronounced kaw-LAL] and this is a word which means very different things, depending upon its stem. In the Qal stem it means abate, were swift, to lightly esteem; in the Niphal stem, it means that something is trivial or unimportant; in the Piel, it means to curse. See the Doctrine of Qâlal—not finished yet!! This means to curse someone because they are trivial and unimportant. Those who use profanity are guilty of this. They treat the Lord Who bought them, the God Who created them as a nothing more than something to pepper their speech with. And when they are under pain and pressure, then they curse the God who made them. The second word for curse is somewhat different: ’ârar (ר ַר ָא) [pronounced aw-RAR] See the Doctrine of ’ârar—not finished yet!! In the first instance, God is being cursed because He is viewed as insignificant, unimportant. In the second case, the ruler is being cursed in terms of wishing unplesant things for him, such as I hope you die, I hope you rot in hell, etc. A good one word translation is execrate (or, even, imprecate). Even Paul when provoked recognized the truth of this law (Acts 23:4–5).

Authority-orientation is a firm precept in the Bible. The followers of Jesus are depicted as long-haired revolutionaries by those who do not have a clue. The Bible clearly teaches respect toward God and respect toward the rulers that He has placed over them in both testaments (see Rom. 13). A parent who teaches his children any differently is doing them a great disservice. In the time that I write, because parents have been cavalier about their substance abuse prior to and during pregnancy, their children are born with a lot more problems than we have seen in the past. Because of a confused manner of raising children—parents do not discipline them or see disciplining as some archaic notion—by the time these children are six or seven, they are out of control and they are medicated rather than disciplined with medications such as Ritalin. The parents have not imposed any true discipline upon the children so they have no self-discipline; consequently they are chemically assaulted with drugs that should be illegal.

Our legal system has gotten out of control and we have people going to court who have no reason to be there. Our system of justice has become distorted, confused and unweildy, serving the lawyers more than serving the people (I speak as one who has been included in a number of frivilous class-action suits against my will and desire). These suits did nothing more than line the pockets of a few dozen lawyers, which, in the long run, cost me a great deal of money. However, even though we live in a system where most of of representatives are thoroughly corrupt—congressmen pass laws to which they will not even subject themselves; they line their pockets with millions of dollars in retirement funds while we cannot keep up with our everincreasing debt—we are still to afford those who rule over us respect and honor. A nation gets the rulers it deserves. We in American have become greedy, materialistic, giving much more thought to the television that we will watch than to the God Who made us. Those in power that we have elected are nothing more than a reflection of ourselves who plunder the treasury because had we the same opportunity, we would do the same. Regardless of the state of affairs, we are to have respect for the office of those in authority.

"You will not delay [or, hold back] your fulness and from your overflow [NASB alternate reading: fullness and tears]; you will give the first-born of your sons to Me. [Ex. 22:29 (28)]

In this verse, we have the Piel imperfect of ’âchar (ר ַח ָא) [pronounced aw-KHAR] and it is often translated by that absolutely horrible KJV word tarry, a word which personally makes my skin crawl. In reference to people, it means to hinder, to delay (Gen. 24:56 32:4 II Sam. 20:5 Isa. 46:13); in reference to things, it means to hold back. (Judges 5:28 Hab. 2:3). Fulness refers to the abundance of that which God has provided them; however, the other word is found only here in Scripture and similar words nearby mean weep. It is guessed that this means the overflow (or, the outflow) of the wine and olive presses. The issue though is clear; God prospers them and God expects them to not withhold their prosperity from Him nor to allow their prosperity to stand in the way of their worship of God. Giving of the first-born to God is not some heathen sacrifice but rather a dedication of the first-born to service to God. The principle of giving is the same today—we give of our prosperity and overflow; we dedicate our all to God.

"You will do likewise with your oxen, with your sheep. It will be with its mother seven days; on the eighth day, you will give it to Me. [Ex. 22:30 (29)]

Several translations say that the oxen and sheep will be with the dam for seven days. The word is ’êm (ם ֵא) [pronounced ame] and it means mother. The analogy is that God the Father will allow Jesus Christ to walk upon this earth and after so many days, give Him to die for us. It is not clear in this verse whether the animal will be dedicated, given to the Levitical priesthood (not setup yet) or simply sacrificed (which seems the most likely).

"A consecrated man will you be to me; therefore, any flesh in the field that is torn by beasts you will not eat; you will cast it to the dogs. [Ex. 22:31 (30)]

Throughout all of v. 31, the 2nd person is plural, referring to the Jews as a group. As a people, they are set apart unto God, not as individuals. They are not to eat the scraps and the leftovers of animals but they are to operate as royalty, as God's people.

Introduction: Chapter 23 continues with the laws for which there are no expressed judgements. The first set of ordinances deal with one's correct behavior in the legal system; the second with the Sabbath year and the Sabbath day; the third with three of Israel's feasts. The last portion of Ex. 23 is God's promises and His expectations concerning the conquest of the land.

We continue with this verse to list a series of ordinances without specific judgements. That is, there is no recommended penalty. This does not mean that a breach of these ordinances carries with it no judicial or civil penalty, but that the judge was given the latitude to penalize as he saw fit. Most of the next nine verse are applications of the ninth commandment.

The first portion of Ex. 23 deals with correct legal behavior. Although lying is wrong 99% of the time, this verse relates particularly to one's testimony as a witness. This verse begins with the negative plus the 2^nd masculine singular, Qal imperfect of nâsâ’ (ה ָ ָנ) [pronounced naw-SAW], which is translated 46 different ways in the KJV version, Qal stem alone. Although we see it translated by such words as bring forth, burn, fetch, forgive, marry, pardon, receive, respect, set, spare, yield, it means lift up, carry. The point is that there is more to this in context than just a simple lie. If that were the case, then the verb would have been a verb denoting simple speech. However, this is something that you are picking up and carrying around with you and presenting it to others. It is more than a simple, white lie spoken one time (this does not excuse the so-called white lie; however, that is not what is in view here).

Report is masculine singular construct of shêma‛ (ע ַמ ֵש) [pronounced SHAY-mah] and this is not just a saying or a few words, but it is an organized and/or formal report (Deut. 2:25 Isa. 23:5). It is something which should be heard or listened to, which is why it is often translated hearing. It is the information reported about someone who is famous (Num. 14:15 I Kings 10:1 II Chron. 9:1 Job 28:22) and in that context is translated fame. Even Young, who prides himself on a consistent literal translation, translates this word, which only occurs 19 times in the Bible, at least four different ways. Shêma‛'s root means to hear. It has a active and a passive meaning: it is that which is spoken so that several people will hear it or that which is heard by several people. Report is a good one-word, almost all-purpose rendering; proclamation being too formal for some contexts. One person's take on rendering one language into another was that human experience is all the same and for every word in one language, there iwll be a corresponding word in another language. As we have gone through these verses, I hope it is obvious to you that notion is crock.

Report is modified by the word shâv^e’ (א ׃ו ָש) [pronounced shawv] which we saw in the third commandment where we were not to use our Lord's name in vanity and emptiness. Here it means empty, worthless, vain, false, meaningless. The report is empty, meaningless, and worthless because it is false. This word deals with the quality of the report because of its content rather than directly with the content of the report.

"You will not join hands with a criminal [or a malevolent person] to be a malicious [and/or, corrupt] witness. [Ex. 23:1b]

The word usually translated wicked (an unfortunately out-of-date term) is râshâ‛ (ע ָש ָר) [pronounced raw-SHAW] and it often means criminal (Ex. 2:13 Num. 35:31 Deut. 25:2 II Sam. 4:11 Psalm 109:7 119:53, 61). It is in contrast with the righteous (Gen. 18:25 Deut. 25:1 Mal. 3:18) and with the just (Psalm 37:12) and is occasionally translated ungodly (II Chron. 19:2 Job 34:18 Psalm 1:1, 4, 6). This is clearly unregenrate man (Psalm 101:8 119:55); however it is more than that. This is the man who is criminal and condemned, if not by man's laws, then by God's. An outstanding, modern, one-word rendering would be malevolent [pronounced ma-LEV-a-lent] for those whose vocabulary exceeds 1000 words. Other good renderings would be maleficent, reprehensible (worthy of blame), corrupt, reprobate; and reasonable but less satisfying would be the translations ungodly, corrupt, unredeemable, unregenerate, iniquitous, wicked. If you have been raised under the KJV, wicked, with an annotated use criminal would cover the meaning here. In this verse, the adjective acts as a substantive, so the renderings criminal, malefactor, reprobate. would be appropos.

When we give a worthless report, joining hands with a criminal, our witness is châmâç (ס ָמ ָח) [pronounced khaw-MAWCE], a word usually translated violence (Gen. 6:11, 13 49:5 II Sam. 22:3, 49); however, there are a number of instances where violence would be totally inappropriate (Gen. 16:5 Deut. 19:16). Therfore, a more suitable translation should be sought. The behavior described by châmâç is consistently wrong, often involving violences and/or criminal activity. It is a noun which here is used to modify the word witness. I personally leans toward the words malicious, cruelty, corrupt or corruption, because such terms can imply criminality and/or violence in the right context. Several of our laws place a person who lies in a legal proceeding in the same category as the criminal. He becomes an accomplice to his criminal activity. This concept is based upon the solid Biblical principles found here. A gang member or a friend may give false testimoney or lie when questioned by police officers in order to protect a criminal; that person by his testimoney is a witness of corruption, maliciousness, and cruelty.

Lev. 19:16 carries a similar prohibition: You will not go about as a slanderer among your people and you are not to take a stand against the life of your neighbor; I am Yahweh. Deut. 22:13–19 deals with a specific act of perjury involving marriage. If a man turns against his wife and falsely accuses her of not being a virgin at marriage in order to get out of the marriage, he would be fined and he must remain in the marriage. In I Kings 21, we have an example of Ahab who indirectly kills a man by false testimoney against him, and gains possession of his land. Under these circumstances, God intervened and punished Ahab. God continues to intervene. We become discouraged at times because we live in an unjust world and people commit crimes for which they are not punished. We do not have to worry. If all legal action has been pursued for naught or if the criminals have never been apprehended, God will see to justice being done. We may not be able observe God's justice, but He will leave no crimine unpunished, no wronged saint unavenged. I have had personal situations where I could have taken various individuals to the civil courts where I have instead left the matter in God's hands and God saw to it thtat I was repaid and they were punished. I've had to put innumerable matters into God's hands and I was not always allowed to see the results—but I know that God took care of the matter. This does not means that we do not avail ourselves of the legal system nor do we disregard the civil court system; however, if we are at a point where we are trying to obtain legal revenge, God can avenge us must better than any court system can. No one gets away with anything on this earth, including you and including me.

"You will not follow a crowd [or, group] into injuries [or, wrongs] nor will you bear witness concerning a dispute turning aside after a crowd in regards to bending [or distorting] [your testimoney]. [Ex. 23:2]

Follow is a preposition rather than a verb, but it is reasonably translated. Rab (ב ַר) [pronounced rahb] is an adjective meaning much, many, great. Here, since it follows the preposition and has no noun in the vicinity to modify, it stands alone as a substantive and means multitude, (the) many, group, crowd. I will go with the more up-to-date rendering. The word usually translated evil is the feminine plural of the adjective râ‛âh (ה ָע ָר) [pronounced rah-AH] and it is the softer version of râ‛ (evil). We have the passive meanings miseries, distresses; and the active meanings injuries, mischief, wrongs. In other words, these are not acts of great evil which are spoken of here. This is less than joining a gang and becoming involved in a crime spree and murder. This is a reference to activity in a group or in a gang, but it refers to even tamer activity. Maybe you'll steal a car, bully someone outside of the gang, engage in some petty theft. The point is that even the things which a more hardened gang might think is standard everyday innocuous behavior is forbidden. Certainly, by extension, the more pernicious forms of evil are therefore forbidden as well.

No verb comes between crowd and evil and evil is preceded by the preposition to, for, in regard to. The first half of this verse speaks against mob violence and against gang violence. Actually, the word râ‛âh does not even have to result in violence but in illegal activity; in doing that which is wrong. Here we are enjoined not to become a part of this sort of activity. The message is simple—God knew then as has become very apparent—that people in groups, when it comes to illegal activity, behave differently than they would as individuals. We are able to avoid falling into a mob mentality by not following them. This would keep us away from unions which go beyond the law, from abortion protest rallies which could result in violence, from gang association, from mob retaliation, even when the cause seems just.

When a crowd (gang, group, mob) becomes involved in illegal activity and is hauled into court, then those who are bystanders or those who are in the crowd are expected to hang together with the group. The conjunction and the negative could be translated and [you will] not or simply as nor. Rîyb (בי ̣ר) [pronounced reeb] means strife, dispute, controversy. It is preceded by the preposition ‛al (ל ַע) [pronounced al], which, like most Hebrew prepositions, had a variety of applications. It generally means upon, on, on the grounds of; but it can means concerning, by, on, to. It does not mean in per se, which is the way it is often rendered. This is a matter which has ended up in court or possibly is being resolved outside of court. After is the same preposition as follow. then we have the preposition to, for, in regards to and the Hiphil infinitive construct of the verb nâţâh (ה ָט ַנ) [pronounced naw-TAW], which means stretch, bend, extend, distort. There is no word for outright lying here; this is a bending or stretching of the testimoney, or witness that you give. You leave out a crucial detail or two; you didn't see this or that; you mislead a judge or an investigating officer by suggesting another theory or an idea suggested by some bystander who was there. The intent is to mislead those who are listening to you. So note here that even if you do fall into a crowd and it results in illegal activity, you are not to even bend your recollection of the facts in order to further follow this crowd. Note the first law of criminality—you never rat on another criminal; and the first law of gang membership—the preservation and welfare of the gang comes first. Both of these concepts are diametrically opposed to the Word of God. You do not become involved and when interviewed in a dispute or a court matter, you do not stretch or alter the truth in any way.

Every juror on a civil suit against a company with deep pockets should have this ingrained in their minds. It is a common mentality to favor the underdog. When you have an individual standing up against a corporation or a company that they claim has wronged them and therefore they deserve compensation; we are not to automatically side with the plaintiff. Hâdar (ר ַד ָה) [pronounced haw-DAR] means, in a good sense, honor, adorn; and in a bad sense it means to be partial, to favor. The psychology here is to err on the side of the weak and the poor against the strong. However, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and no matter how rich the company and no matter how poor and wretched the plaintiff, this is still not a reason so side with the plaintiff. The facts are to be listened to and if the plaintiff has proven his case, then you side with him.

"If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you will bring it back to him. [Ex. 23:4]

We all, at one time or another in the devil's world, make an enemy. Often it is deserved; however, there are even instances when it is not. In any case, we are to not only respect the property and the privacy of our enemies, but we are to actively take part in protecting their property when the situation arises. The ox and the donkey in this context are examples of personal property, rather than the limitations of personal property covered by this ordinance. Today you have a dispute with your next door neighbor; however, if tomorrow, you suspect his home is being vandalized, then you immediately phone the police. What is taught by this verse is that we are to go out of our way to protect that which belongs to our enemy. In the sermon on the mount, our Lord said, You have heard that it was said, "You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." When Jesus spoke these words, the Jews were invovled in a serious political struggle with the Romans and they resented the occupation of their land and the control of their government by the Romans; so they taught that it was reasonable to hate the Romans. However, the God of the Old Testament and the New is the same God. We are to treat our enemies without partiality. Part of the point of vv. 2–3 is to not be partial. This verse takes it out of the realm of dispute and out of the courthouse and into day-to-day life. Our enemies should receive the same treatment that we give to our friends. This does not mean that we have to spend time with them, that we have to like them or say five nice things about them; however, we are not to celebrate their misery and we are to treat them and their possessions with the same respect that we would of a friend.

Now let's cover the finer points of the translation of verse 5. One of the things in this verse which reaches out and grabs you is the same verb is used three times. The verb is ‛âzab (ב ַז ָע) [pronounced aw-ZAB or aw-ZAV] and it means loosen, relinguish, permit, free, let loose, abandon, forsake. It is first preceded by the prefixed preposition min (ן ̣מ) [pronounced min] and it is a preposition which can express separation (from, off, on the side of, away from) and it can express cause (on account of, since, at, by, in consequence of, proceeding from). When prefixed to an infinitive (as it is here), it can have a causal force, but more often, it comes after verbs which imply or express restraint, preventions, cessation and it is translated from. The preceeding verb is châdal (ל ַד ָח) [pronounced khaw-DAL] which means to cease, desist. ‛Âzab is in Qal infinitive construct with the 3^rd person, masculine singular suffix, so these three words should be rendered cease from forsaking it. This is followed by the Qal infinitive absolute ‛âzab. The infinitive absolute when it stands alone functions primarily as a noun; however when it is a complement of affirmation, it is translated surely, indeed; and when it is the complement of impropability and condition, it can be translated at all, freely, indeed. That is, when it is used with the same verb, as it is here, it is used to intensify the meaning. The third time ‛âzab is used (the next word), it is the 2^nd person, masculine singular, Qal imperfect. The intensified meaning combined with the 2^nd person transforms this into a very strong command without using the imperative mood. It should be translated, you will certainly loosen (or set free). The last word is the preposition which usually means with, however, when used with vrerbs of departing, taking, removing, it means from with, away from, far from. The preposition has with it the the 3^rd person, masculine singular suffix so this portion of the verse should read: you will cease from abandoning it; you will certainly remove [the burden] from it. So properly transalted, we have:

"If you see the donkey of one who hates you crouching [or, lying] under its burden, you will refrain from abandoning it [the donkey]; you will by all means [or, certainly] free [the donkey] from it [or, you will certainly remove [the burden] from it]

. [Ex. 23:5]

After having gone into the finer points of translation, you may think that this verse says essentially the same thing as the previous verse. However, notice what has occurred; the donkey has collapsed under its load. Donkeys rarely load themselves up; it was the one who hates you—he overloaded the donkey. It was his fault. He has done this to himself and to his donkey. However, do you do to him the next day and say, "Too bad about your donkey; I told you not to put so much on him." You fix the problem then and there even if this was a problem which your enemy has caused. Now this does not mean you become a busy body and follow your enemies around and try and fix everything they screw up. However, if in your normal state of affairs, you can help your enemy, even if their problems are their own fault, then you do so. You are to treat their property and their troubles as if they were your own. I do not want to neglect the kindness shown to the beast as well in this verse. Because the roads are rough, a donkey might look as though he can handle a paricular load until he comes to a steep incline or comes across rocks or an uneven surface, he falls. Under this load, it is nearly impossible for the donkey to set itself upright again.

In the story (not the parable) of the good Samaritan, as found in Luke 11, a man is attacked and beaten by theives on his way to Jericho. A priest and a Levite, both men supposidly learned in the Law see this man laying half dead by the side of the road and they each walk by him on the other side of the road. The Samaritan, from a group despised by some Jews, stops and aids the victim. In this way, the Samaritan shames to priest and the Levite who do less for this beaten man than they are supposed to do for an enemy's donkey. Many people have the mistaken impression that our Lord came and changed the Mosaic Law in His teaching. He confirmed the Mosaic Law and properly applied it; something sorely lacking in the religion of the Jews, who sought to obey it in legalism.

This extends to social situations as well. There are times that you must work or socialize with people who dislike you (and this is often our fault); however, there are a few of us who are disliked without a reason. And these enemies occasionally treat us unfairly, speak evil against us and carry mental attitude sins against us. We are to treat them with the same consideration, kindness and tact that we would afford a close friend. Whereas, it is unreasonable to go out of our way to make continual contact with those who cannot stand us; on the other hand, when we do not have a choice, our minds should be free of mental attitude sins, our words should be kind and not ascerbic, we should not resort gossiping about them and our interaction with them should be characterized by thoughtfulness and consideration. This obviously requires the power of God the Holy Spirt and when we fail at this, we confess that sin to God and move on. I can almost guarentee that when you fail in this when dealing with an enemy, God will give you another chance, another enemy, and another opportunity to be gracious toward them.

"You will not cause to distort the judgement of your needy [friend] in his dispute. [Ex. 23:6]

V. 6 begins with the negative and the Hiphil imperfect of nâţâh (ה ָט ַנ) [pronounced naw-TAW] again. This is followed by the construct of the noun mish^epâţ (ט ָ ׃ש ̣מ) [pronounced mish-PAWT] and it is the act of rendering a verdict, the act of deciding a case; the process, proceedure or litigation before a judgement; it can mean justice, right, ordinance, decision. Judgement is a reasonable one-word translation, but recall that this word occurs about 500 times in the Old Testament. Then we have the word ’eb^eyôwn (ןי ׃ב ∵א) [pronounced eb-YONE] and it means want, needy, poor. It is qualified by the suffix your (in the singular), implying friendship or relationship. If your were in the plural, it might refer to the needy in Israel in general. However, the singular suffix implies a closer relationship. This means not only do you not side with the poor, but even if this is a friend of yours going to court and he desperately needs money, you still do not distort the truth in his favor.

"Keep far from a lying words and do not slay the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify the malevolent. [Ex. 23:7]

Dâbâr (ר ָב ָ) [pronounced daw-BAWR] is one of those words translated 84 different ways in the KJV. It is a reference to what has been said or spoken and can be translated word, charge, message, report, tidings, speech, discourse, saying; etc. It is coupled with the substantive used as a descriptor: sheqer (ר ∵ק ∵ש) [pronounced sheh-KER], which means deception, disappointment, falsehood . There are times I admire the translation of the KJV and other times, like now, when it makes me scratch my head. This exact same pair of words is found in Ex. 5:9 (translated vain words); 23:7 (translated false matter); Prov. 13:5 (translated lying); 29:12 (translated lies); and Jer. 7:4, 8 29:23(translated lying words). The two together are more than just decepiton, falsehood—they refer to something which is spoken and which is false. The scene here is likely a courtroom or a criminal investigation. The result of lies during an investigation and ensuing trial is oft times the conviction and execution of an innocent man. Those who support the lies are guilty of murdering the person convicted by the judge. Although the translation acquit is very up-to-date and it seems to fit, the word here means justify, make righteous, vindicate. It is a step further than being acquited—the person is also declared righteous. Who God will not justify is the criminal or the malevolent person. This is not another verse which agains says you will not murder, but in different words. This is equating the person giving false testimoney in a criminal case to the criminal. At one time this was a rare occurence; now in gangs, those who are picked up by the authorities are filled with lies and falsehoods. I have mentioned I Kings 21:9–13 earlier; this passage is an illustration of one who has broken this ordinance.

The malevolent here, is not the criminal, but the person who perverts the judicial systemby prosecuting and convicting an innocent person. How many district attorneys prosecute a person whose guilt they are not convinced of; however they prosecute this person with great intensity for their own political promotion. How many suppress or ignore evidence which might free an innocent man? How many members of the police force do the exact same thing? They have a suspect who they feel is probably the guilty party and evidence which might exonerate the man is not examined as carefully as the evidence which condemns him.

Our own system of justice is corrupt insofar as when new evidence which either unequivocally condemns or exonerates a man who has been previously tried and a verdict rendered, this man is not retried. For we have nuances of the law which prevents condemning evidence from being introduced into a trial. All of the evidence against a man should be introduced into trial. If some of it was obtained illegally, then that is a separate matter to be determined in another court with other types of outcomes (for instance, a suit against the arresting officer or a suit against the city for illegal search and seizure

). For, he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Y^ehowah (Prov. 17:15).

Secondarily, when an innocent man is condemned (which is bound to happen in any legal system), this verse means that the guilty person does not get off scot free. God will punish that person as well.

"Furthermore, you will not take a bribe because a bribe blinds the officials and subverts [or, overturns] the words of the righteous. [Ex. 23:8]

When those who are in a place to judge criminal cases take bribes, it is an indication of a greedy and degenerate society. Such a one has a place of high respect and generally commands a reasonable salary. Still his lust for more materialistic things causes him to lose his focus upon justice. Sâlaph (ף ַל ָס) [pronounced saw-LAF] is translated subvert, pervert and overthrow. It is found only in this passage, Deut. 16:19

Job 12:19 Prov. 13:6 19:3 21:12 22:12. When it is used with reference to the words of the righteous, it is translated pervert, subvert; however, in relation to the words of the transgressor, it it translated overthrow. Sâlaph perverts and overturns; subvert or overturn are good one-word renderings. The righteous man is just one who is telling the truth here; he is relaying the facts exactly as he perceived them; however, because those involved in the justice system have been bribed, his words have been oveturned, subverted and supplanted.

Samuel the judge and the prophet, a man often ignored in the pulpit, was an honorable official; the last judge over Israel before their continual demands resulted in the installation of a king. He illustrated with his life what it means to be in a place of authority and to maintain personal integrity. The people he judged testified to this when they said, "You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anyting from any man's hand." (I Sam. 12:4b). Regardless of the position that we hold, whether we have a great deal of authority or none at all; our lives should be characterized by the personal integrity of Samuel. Samuel, like all judges, had great opportunity to bend a rule or a judgement here or there which would result perhaps in additional personal wealth; however, he remained true to his position and function therein as unto the Lord. On the other hand, his sons did not possess this same personal integrity (I Sam. 8:3).

"And you will not oppress an alien. You know what is it like to be an alien [lit., you know the soul of an alien] for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. [Ex. 23:9]

Israel will be open to people of all other nations as Israel is to be the light of the world, the possesor of the one true God. Therefore, with this responsibility, they would occassionally experience an influx of immigrants. The KJV word is sojourner, which is an excellent rendering, as it means one on a visa; a temporary visitor (even the the Israelites were in Egypt for 400 years, this was temporary). Unfortunately, the word is so dated that it no longer communicates whereas alien does. An alien falls into the class of people who can be easily taken advantage of. They could be forced into slavery; a judge could arbitrarily deny him due process of the legal system; people might try to cheat and persecute him because he cannot fight back and he has no family and no one to stand up for him (just as Egypt one day decided to arbitrarily place the Jews under slavery, despite their great numbers). Israel cannot reflect the character of God and treat the alien as Egypt had treated them. Thisis a simple, you know exactly what it feels like to be taken advantage of, to be persecuted, to have your property and livelihood taken from you by the state—now don't do it to someone else.

Many people glibly ignore much of what the Bible says about morality, particularly that which is found in the Old Testament because they can find other laws which seem ridiculous by today’s standards. What has happened here is that we have because so uneducated in the Old Testament, that we have no real clue as to why these laws were in existence. Israel was a theocracy—that is, they were ruled directly by God. They existed as a nation for several centuries without having a king to rule over them, which was almost unheard of for a very united group of small nations. This is because God ruled over them with God’s Laws. Some of these laws dealt with a morality designed for that time period; some of them dealt with a morality for all time; some were simply ceremonial and spoke of the Christ Who was to come. Taking a ceremonial law which pointed forward to Christ coming and citing that as a ridiculous law indicates that the person so trashing God’s Law has no idea what the ceremonial portion was about. It was important for there to be a seven-day week with a Sabbath for several reasons—let cite a few of them:

(1) God created (or restored) the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. Having a Sabbath day rest points back to God’s work and recognizes God’s work. The fact that practically every nation on earth functions on a seven-day work week is a testimony to God’s restoration of the earth.

(2) Man needs some time off; man requires some certain amount of rest and relaxation to recharge his batteries; even for the unbeliever, the Sabbath-day concept is important.

(3) Man needs some time set aside in any given week to worship God. It should be a nightly affair at least; however, the once a week gathering is a bare minimum.

(4) The Sabbath concept—that God has done all of the work and man can simply receive what God has provided, teaches grace and teaches the concept of salvation by grace apart from any merit.

(5) When it comes to the Church Age, there is an indication throughout the New Testament that the church often met on the first day of the week, which was Sunday, to commemorate the fact that Christ, the Savior, did come, and was raised from the dead on our behalf.

The use of the word for in other Bible translations to begin this verse sounds as though this is an inference continued from the previous verse. However, the word is the simple waw conjunction, properly rendered and. Since the Hebrew is bereft of a caucophoney of conjunctions, I prefer to pepper it up periodically; however, not in a way which would mislead the rader as to the intended meaning. There is a Hebrew word which is an inferential conjunction and would be translated for; however, that word is not found here. This is a new ordinance; or an ordinance covering a different topic. God did notr choose to cover the ordinances in an organized fashion; that is, we do not find all of the alien passages in one place, the festivals in another, the Sabbath day passages in another. God chose to present these in smaller chunks and my guess is that the laws are more palitable and easier to listen to if one particular topic is not beat to death, so to speak.

This verse begins the discussion of the Sabbath year, something which is unique and would have set the Jews apart from every nation in the world. Most nations today have a weekend, or days off; and even some professions offer a Sabbatical to their workers (at least when I taught in California, a teacher could go on Sabbatical, receive one-half of his salary, and pursue intellectual pursuits—I don't know whether that is still available to them). A sabbatical year was the seventh year where to Jews rested from their labors and allowed God to take care of them. This was one of the laws which they totally ignored. They wrote law after law after law which dealt with the Sabbath day, detailing what could be done and what could not be done on the Sabbath; but they totally ignored this Sabbath year.

"And in the seventh year, you will let it [your land] rest and lie fallow and the poor of you people may eat and what they leave, the wild beasts will do likewise with your vineyard and with your olive orchard. [Ex. 23:11]

We have since found that it is good to let a portion of crop land rest now and again. Here, whatever grew as a volunteer (as one gardener used to call it) was allowed to grow and to be harvested by the poor and then by the wild animals. This would have been a statement to the other nations unlike any other: a people would actually cease harvesting for one full year every seven years and depend upon their God. No other nation in the world would be foolish enough to depend upon their idols and their gods because they would all starve. Unfortunately, Israel would not either and God had to enforce this Sabbath year. Israel was dispersed from the land temporarily, during which time the land enjoyed its Sabbath years all at once.

One of the main reasons for the goofy theories about the four different authors of the Penteteuch and for denying Mosaic authorship is that it made very accurate predictions concerning what would happen to the Jews. In Lev. 26:32–35 we read: "And I [God] will make the land desolate so tht you enemies who settle in it will be appalled over it. You, however, I will scatter among the nations and I will take out a sword after you, as your land becomes desolate and your cities become waste. Then the land will enjoys its sabbaths all the days of the desolation, while ou are in your enemies land; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the days of desolaltion it will observe the rest which it did not observe on your sabbaths, while you were living on it." We expect to read this as having been written years after the Jews were dispersed; not forty years prior to their even entering the land.

The scholar who despises divine authorship of the Word cannot cope with the idea that here in the desert, during their first year, 40 years before they enter the land, God tells them (1) enemies would settle into their land; (2) the land will not a land flowing with milk and honey for them; it will appall them; (3) the Jews would be removed from the land; (4) their land would become desolate and their cities rubble; and, finally, (4) they would not observe their sabbath year, so God would enforce it, giving a time table to the length of their original dispersion. No unbeliever likes this passage. No man who despises God and His Word and attempts to demythologize it cares for prophecy. They automatically assume that all prophecy has to occur after the event; that is a tacit assumption on their part. Therefore, the five books of Moses cannot be written by Moses because they assume that there can be no such thing as prophecy. There can be no such thing as miracles. Moses cannot look that accurately into the future and determine events hundreds of years in advance. Therefore, they come up with extremely convoluted theories of authorship which have no basis in fact other than they fit their own particular predispositions.

[Jeremiah is speaking roughly twenty years prior to the dispersion] "For thus says the Lord: 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.' For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.' For thus says the Lord of the armies, 'Behold, I am sending upon them the sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like split-open figs thta cannot be eaten due to rottenness. I will will pursue them with the sword, with famine and with pestilence; and I will maek them a terror to all the kingdoms of th erath, to be a curse, and a horror, and a hissing, and a reproach amontg all the nations where I have driven them, because they have not listened to My words,' declares the Lord, 'which I sent to them againa dnagain by My servants, the prophets; but you did not listen,' declares the Lord (Jer. 29:10–11, 17–19).

Therefore, He brought them up against the king of the Chaldeans who slew their young men wit the sword in the house of their sanctuary, an dhad no compassion on the young man or virgin, old man or informj; He gave [them] all into his hand. And all the articles of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king of of his officers, he brought them all to Babylon. Then they burned the house of God an dbroke down the wlal of Jerusalem and burned all its fortified buidligns with fire, and estroyed all its valuable articles. And those who had escaped form the sword, he carried away to Babylon; and they wre servants to him and to his son s until the rule of the kingdom of Persia; to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seven years were complete (II Chron. 36:17–21).

In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans—in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of years which was [revealed by] the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desoaltions of Jerusalem: seventy years (Dan. 9:1–2).

"Six days you will do your work but on the seventh day you will rest that you may rest your ox and your donkey and the son of your bondmaid and the alien may be refreshed. [Ex. 23:12]

Here we are given a rationale for the Sabbath day other than a sign between God and HIs people. It is a time for rest not only for the Jews, but for all of the people in their land. God is a God over all and all men need some time to rest and recouperate. All of us need this refreshment and this is God's provision for us.

"Take heed to all that I have said to you; and make no mention of the names of other gods nor let [their names] be heard out of your mouth. [Ex. 23:13]

V. 12 is another take on the fourth commandment, the Sabbath day; and v. 13 is another take on first commandment. There is no God but Yahweh, the God of the Universe; every other god is a semblance of Satan or one of his demon missionaries.

My remembrance of the Bible before I knew anything about it or Jesus Christ was that the Jews were a people who fasted a lot; those who followed our Lord Jesus fasted a lot. I had this picture of a lot of skinny, hungry people following our Lord around. However, this far into God's Word and we have not even seen the word fast. Not until we reach the degenerate time of the judges will we hear word one about fasting (Judges 20:26).

At this point, we should examine the word found here: châgag, since we will find it used several times throughout the Law: the Doctrine of Châgag (not completed yet).

"You will keep the feast of the unleavened bread for seven days. You will eat unleavened bread as I had commanded you at the appointed time in the month of Abib; for during that month [lit., in it] you came out of Egypt and they will not appear before Me [lit., My face] empty-handed. [Ex. 23:15]

There are a couple of problems with the translation here. People do not like being aware of this verse and Ex. 33:20, 23b, which reads: But He said, "You cannot see My face for no man can see Me and live! You will see My back, but My face shall not be seen" Often the Hebrew takes words which are properly applied to parts of the body and uses them in a more poetic, figurative manner. Face is another word for presence. This still leaves us with the problem of Ex. 33:20. The point of that verse is that we cannot be in God's perfect, holy presence as we are. All men are corrupt, sinful and carry Adam's original sin. In God's presence, He can only condemn us as we are. The verb is the 3^rd person, masculine plural, Niphal imperfect of râ’âh (ה ָא ָר) [pronounced raw-AWH], simply meaning to see. The Niphal is the passive voice, so this means to be seen by, to appear before. Rather than these verses contradicting one another, these verse complement each other. We cannot appear before God empty-handed; that is, we cannot appear before Him with nothing. We take to God the perfect work of Jesus Christ. We do not bring to him the puny works of our own hands (the mistake of Cain). We do not bring to him our intentions, our attempts to be good, the works of our hands; because these things are appearing before Him empty-handed; we come before Him in Christ, perfect by imputation.

We have already covered the feast of unleavened bread. One of the greatest setbacks to Israel is that they mixed God's Truth with a lot of false doctrine. They allowed themselves to be influenced by other peoples and by their gods; and they added great volumes of literature to the Law, which distorted the Law. In other words, they added leaven to the lump. The feast of unleavened bread was a sign to keep God's Word pure and separate from false doctrine and false interpretations. God's Word is the unleavened bread of life and Jesus Christ is the bread of life.

"And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of you labor of what you sow in the field; and the feast of ingathering at the end of the year when you gather in the fruit of your labor from the field. [Ex. 23:16]

These last two feasts are new and had not been mentioned prior to now in the Bible. Jesus Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection (I Cor. 15:20). Once He has been harvested—raised from the dead—then we who are alive will be raised; and seven years later, the OT saints. This is the feast of the ingathering at the end of the year. God will gather all of us at the end of time unto Him; and this is the feast which speaks of that. It is a time of celebration. We will cover the feast days altogether in more detail when we get to Lev. 23.

"Three times in the year, all your males will appear in the presence of [lit., in the face of] the Lord Yahweh. [Ex. 23:17]

Three times a year, after the Israelites settled in Canaan, their males would travel to Shiloh or to Bethel or to Jerusalem, wherever their sacred city was at that time (the sacred city would be wherever the Tent and the Ark of God were). First, we should look at the word males, which corresponding Hebrew word is only found in four passages. The word is zâkûwr (רכָז) [pronounced zaw-KOOR], which is generally translated male. However, there is no emphasis upon males exclusively in these four passages where this word is found (Ex. 23:17 34:23 Deut. 16:16 20:13).* Strong’s #2138 BDB #271. In practice, this would often be entire families (see, for instance, I Sam. 1:1–7, 21 Luke 2:41–44). In fact, for the family to eat of the tithes, they had to attend these feasts (Deut. 12:17–18 16:14). And certainly neither this passage or any of its parallel passages require that the influx be exclusively males. The males, at minimum, were required to show. Jerusalem certainly made provision for such an influx, and those who were unable to find shelter lived in their tents either along or in the streets or on the outskirts of town. Freeman points out that this was done with more ease than we would expect, citing the more recent Muhammadans who in great numbers, make their journey to Mecca, carrying enough provisions to get them there and back, along with the necessary provisions for their camels and donkeys. If Satan's counterfeit of the real thing can do this then certainly the Jews were able to accomplish this.

Now, a minor problem is that we have 8 various feasts (actually 7 with one added much later) and three times that Israel is to gather. We will deal with this point by point in Deut. 12:5.

This continues the parallel; at the end of time, all men will stand before our Lord; specifically the believers for evaluation. The harvest which they bring before Yahweh is the yield of the ground brought forth by God. They are bringing before God what He has wrought. Just as when we stand in the presence of our Lord and we are judged, He first justifies us as we stand under the work of Jesus Christ; that is, we are justified because we are His and because we have appropriated the work of Jesus Christ, as no good thing dwells within us. Then we bring for reward the works that God has wrought through us in the power of the Holy Spirit, through the understanding of His Word. Those who appear before God without the blood of Christ will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. God has no choice but to judge and condemn that person. God has done everything He can to bring us to Him. When we reject His Son, we have rejected Him and the only provision which allows us to stand before God. For the believers who appear before God empty-handed (that is, bringing no works of the Spirit to Him; works which He would have done through us), there is that moment of shame prior to going into eternity.

"You will not offer [lit., sacrifice] with [lit., upon] leavened bread the blood of my sacrifice or let the fat of my feast remain until morning [or, you will not slay and pour out the blood of my sacrifice upon leavened bread or let the fat of My feast remain until morning]. [Ex. 23:18]

Leaven is apostasy and falsehood mixed into the truth. God's gospel of salvation and the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ is not to be polluted with leaven. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is perfect and sufficient ofr our salvation. There is no need to add any works, good deeds or human additions to what He accomplished. Whatever we would add to God's plan, to Christ's work on the cross, to the gospel of our Lord, would be nothing but leaven.

The fat of My feast is a metonymy for the sacrifice offered to the Lord. Once our Lord died for our sins, he was taken immediately off the cross. He was not left on the cross until morning. Once He had paid for our sins, He gave up the spirit and physically died. Then he was taken from the cross and placed into a tomb. Those who ate of the feast were not to allow the food to remain until morning. They were to partake of the food immediately, as we are to partake of our Lord immediately upon hearing the gospel. We are to eat of the gospel of our Lord, the bread of life, and whoever eats shall never again hunger.

"You will bring into the house of Yahweh, your God, the first of the first fruits of your ground. You will not boil a kid in its mother's milk. [Ex. 23:19]

Although the Jews did not have the specifics yet, they would, at some point in the future, have a tabernacle and then a temple, both of which spoke of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His death on our behalf. God gives them the harvest. He brings the rain, He gives them the ground and the seed, and He causes the seed to grow. All that we have has been given to us by God. The offering of the first fruits is a recognition of this. After salvation, we present our bodies as a living sacrifice to our Lord. Our labors should be for Him, on His behalf. Therefore, the best that we have, our first fruits, belong to Him (this is after salvation; prior to salvation, we have nothing to offer Him).

When God speaks of judgement, He uses the analogy of fire. When an animal is offered to our Lord, it is burnt with fire—as our Lord was judged by God the Father and therein paid for our sins. Nor do we immerse our Lord in the doctrine of his earthly mother, Mary; the mother of His humanity. She has nothing to do with salvation; she has an old sin nature as does everyone else. This same command is repeated in Ex. 34:26 and Deut. 14:21.

"Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared [for you]. [Ex. 23:20]

Angel is the word mal^e’ân^e (׃ך ָא ׃ל ַמ) [pronounced mal-AWK] and its root means to dispatch. This is one dispatcheb by God, generally an angel. It is reasonably translated angel, messenger and the word is used for both men who are priests (Mal. 2:7 and possibly Ecc. 5:5) or prophets (II Chron. 36:15–16 Isa. 42:19 44:26) and this word is used for our Lord Jesus Christ, in theophanic form, prior to the incarnation, as in Gen. 19:1, 15 28:12 32:2. In the ase of the former, God has sent the priest and the prophet with a message from Him. This is the revealed member of the trinity, Jesus Christ, Who appeared several times in various forms to the Israelites and guided them through the desert. It was not time for them to enter into the land yet because they were not ready and the degeneracy of the Amorites was not yet full.

A great deal of the Old Testament is an illustration, an analogy or a type of that which was to come. These were literal occurrences during those times; that is, God literally prepared the land of Canaan for Israel to take possession of—a land flowing with milk and honey; however, this finds its New Testament parallel in John 14:2–3 where our Lord is speaking to His disciples: "In my Father's house there are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for you see, I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will return and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." The promised land represents eternity with God the Father in a place prepared by God the Son specifically for us; just as God the Father and God the Son prepared the land of Canaan for occupation by the Jews.

The Amplified Bible	Give heed to Him, listen to and obey His voice; be not rebellious before him or provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgression; for My name is in Him.
The Emphasized Bible	Take thou heed of his presence and hearken to his voice—do not vex him,—for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is within him.
KJV	Beware of Him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.
NASB	Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him.
NIV	Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
NRSV	Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.
Owen's Translation	Give heed to him and hearken to his voice. Do not rebel against him for he will not pardon your transgression for my name in him.
Young's Literal Translation	Be watchful because of his presence, and hearken to his voice, rebel not against him, for he beareth not with your transgression, for My name is in his heart;

Obviously, we have a lot of agreement here, and you would think with all that we could quickly dispense with this verse and move on. However, there is a lot here which is lost in the English. This verse begins with the 2^nd person, masculine singular, Niphal imperative of shâmar (ר ַמ ָש) [pronounced shaw-MAR]. This is a word which defies a one-word rendering from the Hebrew into the English. The root means to hedge. When it is used of God's Word, it means guard, keep, preserve; when used of our Lord in this context, it means watch, observe, pay attention to. The Niphal is generally the passive of the Qal, but in the imperative, a passive meaning is more diffcult to wrest from this word (other than the one given: pay heed to, observe). The Niphal can refer to the verb in progress or in development and the English word being is sometimes added to the translation to give the feeling of more continuous action. Individually, they were to pay attention, to watch, to observe the Angel of God. He was to be the focus of their attention. Then we have the 2^nd masculine singular, Qal imperative of shâma‛ (ע ַמ ָש) [pronounced shaw-MAH] which passively means to hear intelligently and actively means to listen intently. The Qal is active and the imperative corresponds to an active voice. Again, this is directed toward every individual. God speaks to Israel as a nation and as a group of people at times, but primarily as to each and every individual. Furthermore, this is a play on words which we miss entirely in the English: shaw-MAR shaw-MAH.

This is followed by the 2^nd person, masculine singular, Hiphil imperfect of mârar (ר ַר ָמ) [pronounced maw-RAR], a word which is translated bitter everywhere but here (as you can see). This is accompanied with the negative and they Israelites are told to not be bitter against the Angel of God. Against Him is not a preposition with the 3^rd masculine singular suffix, as you would suppose from the translations, but merely the masculine singular suffix of the verb. The Hiphil is the causative stem, and it means not causing yourselves to be bitter [toward] Him or [with reference to] Him, not becoming bitter. I don't think that we could translate this not causing Him to be bitter, as the suffix is 3^rd person but the verb is 2^nd person. In this verse I become rather disheartened with Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible because he purports to be the literalist, yet translated this verb rebel

. The author himself points out at the beginning of his translation of the Bible that several words are erratically translated and then he translates this differently than it is translated elsewhere in his rendering.

This verse continues with a conjunction, the negative and the 3^rd person, masculine singular, Qal imperfect of nâsâ’ (א ָ ָנ) [pronounced naw-SAW] and it is wrongly translated pardon, forgive. How does this happen? The highly respected KJV begins with this translation and it can be interpreted that way; so most translations go right along with it. There is a word for pardon and a word for justify, yet neither of these words are here. This word means lift, bear, carry. We find, unfortunately, 46 English words in the KJV which translate this one word. What will our Lord not bear? Finally it is time to rejoice because we have a word correctly rendered: your transgression (which is in the singular and obviously refers back to their bitterness, which indicates negative volition toward God). However, there is one minor problem here: the translations leave out the lâmed preposition, which means to, for, in regards to, with reference to. Your transgression is not the object of the verb; the angel will not bear, carry, or lift, with regard to your transgression. Your, here, is plural, rather than singular. This refers to a national transgression which arises from individual transgressions.

"Observe Him and listen to His voice; not becoming bitter [toward] Him, for He will not bear with reference to your transgression; for My name [is] in Him. [Ex. 23:21]

The verse ends reasonably well, however, in the translations. God's name is His reputation, His character and He places this inside of this angel because this angel is God. The Angel of the Lord has the exact same essence as God the Father.

V. 22 has some problems in the translation, but ones which are not quite as flagrant as v. 20. Most renderings read I will be an enemy to your enemies. It sounds as though we have hâyâw coupled with two nouns. Actually, we have the 1^st person singular, Qal perfect of ’âyab (ב ַי ָא) [pronounced aw-YAB] which means to be hostile toward, to be at enmity with, and then we have the Hebrew denotation of a direct object, which is the word ’eth (ת ∵א) [pronounced ayth] rather than a particular case of a word (Hebrew does not have a case system as does the Greek). What follows is the masculine plural, 2^nd masculine singular suffix, Qal active participle of ’âyab again. The participle acts like a noun, but there is action involved. This would be more literally rendered, those being hostile toward you.

You would expect to find the exact same sentence structure here with the next phrase, judging by what we have in the English—and we do—with the exception that there are two different verbs here. The first verb is tsûwr (רצ) [pronounced tsoor], which has two different listings in the Hebrew lexicons (as two different verbs spelled the same way in BDB) and as a verb and a noun in Strong's. It's primitive root means confine, cramp; an dit appears as though it can have two ratehr distinct meanings depending upon the context. In some contexts, there is no hostility involved (Ex. 32:4 Deut. 14:25 SOS 8:9

) and in others, this word seems to refer to an all out attack (Deut. 14:25 II Sam. 11:1 Ezek. 4:3). In the latter sense, the subject of the verb is encompassing or surrounding the object of the verb with hostile intentions; in the former use, there is an encompassing or surrounding, but the intentions, as per the context, are not hostile. Beseige is an absolutely marvelous translation, as it carries with it the connotation of attacking or assaulting and the idea of enclosing. The second word is the verb tsârar (ר ַר ָצ) [pronounced tsaw-RAR], a word which appears less than sixty times in the Old Testament, but is translated by over a dozen English words. It carries with it the same primitive root as does tsûwr, but it does not appear to carry with it the connotation of an actual attack (with the exceptions of I Kings 8:37 II Chron. 6:28 Neh. 9:27). It means to afflict, to suffer distress, to distress.

"Because if you listen carefully to His voice [lit., in listening, you listen to His voice] and do all that I say, and I have become hostile toward those being hostile to you and I have beseiged [or, encompassed and assaulted] to the ones afflicting [or, distressing] [all of] you. [Ex. 23:22]

As you see, the literal translation, in meaning, is not too far from the traditional translations; however, the wording is dramatically changed. The Jews thus far have the point of reference the Egyptians. They have seen what this means for God to be an enemy to their enemies. The Egyptians were more numerous and much stronger than they were, and much better adapted to warfare. The only edge on the side of the Israelites was that the Egyptians had a large group of gods and the God of the Jews was Yahweh.

"When my angel goes before you and brings you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the

Hivites and the Jebusites, then [lit., and] I have removed them. [Ex. 23:23]

These are the names of those which occupied the land of Canaan—groups and tribes and nations which were much stronger and more aggressive than Israel and these same groups and tribes and nations are no longer found. The verb is the Hiphil perfect of kâchad (ד ַח ָ) [pronounced kaw-khad] means hide, cut off, blot out. Remove, purge, depose would be a good, one-word, active translation, whereas removed, hidden would be reasonable renderings of the passive meaning. The Hiphil is the causative stem; however, it also means that the object participates in the verb as a second subject. This is clearly human volition factored into this equation. God did not bring the Jews into the land immediately because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet complete (Gen. 15:16). A people must participate in their own destruction; in their own removal from history. God does not arbitrarily take out a people just because He would like His people, the Jews, to occupy that piece of real estate. Their degeneracy must reach a peak, a point of no return; they must be at a place where they are a cancer to society and society would only be served by removing them entirely.

"You will not bow down to their gods nor serve them, nor do according to their works, but you will utterly overthrow them and break in pieces their pillars. [Ex. 23:24]

Uterly overthrow, as you may have suspected, is a doubling of the verb. There is no other God but Yahweh and if the Jews chose to worship any other god, this would be demon worship. Now were they to do anything on behalf of the demon gods—that is, they were not to participate in the worship service, to watch the sacrifices to them, etc. Neither today are Christians to have any involvement with demonically inspired religion. We are not to attend apostate churches, support organizations which are influenced and empowered by demons; our strength and our guidance comes through God's Word. Because Israel was to be a theocracy, they could destroy all vertige of degenerate demonism.

"You will serve Yahweh your God and He will bless your bread and water and I will remove sickness from the midst of you. [Ex. 23:25]

God blesses our daily needs and provides for our necessities if we serve Him. Notice the combination of the first person and the third person in this verse. The trinity is again inferred.

V. 26 can sound and mean something entirely different, depending upon the translation:

The Amplified Bible None shall lose her young by miscarriage or be barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.

The Emphasized Bible There shall be nothing casting its young or barren in thy land,—the number of thy days will I make full.

NASB There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land: I will fulfill the number of your days.

NIV And none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.

Owen's Translation None shall be casting her young or be barren in your land; the number of your days I will fulfil.

Our verse begins with the 3^rd person, feminine singular, Qal imperfect of hâyâh (ה ָי ָה) [pronounced haw-YAWH] which is the Hebrew equivalent of be or become. This is combined with the negative. This means the subject is a female, not the word none. When the negative preceeds the verb, it negates the verb

. This is followed by the feminine singular, Piel participle of shâkal (ל ַכ ָש) [pronounced shaw-KAL]; in the Qal, it means simply bereaved (that is, the person has lost his or her children; Gen. 43:14 clearly shows that this is not necessarily a miscarriage). In the intensive Piel stem, it can also mean bereavement (again, not necessarily a miscarriage—Gen. 42:36 I Sam. 15:33). In fact, of the 24 times this word occurs, it usually does not refer to a miscarriage (with the exception of Gen. 31:38 Hos. 9:14) but to the loss of children already born (Lev. 26:22 Ezek. 5:17 14:15 Hos. 9:12). A participle can function as an adjective or as a noun (actually, it is used most often as an adjectival noun). When there is no specified subject, the participle is best translated as passive

This is followed by the conjunction and the adjective for barren. Adjectives in the predicate form imply the verb to be. The conjunction takes with it the negative. We do not have a subject for the first clause of this verse and the main verb is in the feminine singular. We might translate this as It will not come to pass that she will be bereaved or barren. Your is the 2^nd masculine singular suffix affixed to land. God is addressing the people of Israel in general; each one specifically. As is the case with most languages, when you are speaking to males and females, you use the male gender.

Now that we have the first portion of this verse straightened out; it simply means that God will protect women from bereavement (whether by miscarriage or loss of already born children) and from barrenness. However, this is predicated upon fulfilling vv. 24–25; that is, they Jews will not fall into the idolatry of the peoples who inhabit the promised land (v. 24) and that they serve Yahweh (v. 25).

Mâlê’ (א ֵל ָמ) [pronounced maw-LAY] means to be full. It can be translated in a good sense as filled with abundance, plentitude; and often when dealing with age or time, the implication is completion or fulfillment. It would be translated in a bad sense when context directs, as in Job 36:17 Jer. 16:18. You understand what this means. You have people whose lives seem to be cut short, lives which seemed to accomplish little. Even the phrase, I am too young to die doesn't quite convey the negative, as most people are never ready to die. This verse is the positive side; the lives of people who have accomplish all that was reasonable for them to accomplish; that they leave this life with nothing undone. Perhaps another way to convey this is that they are ready to spend eternity with God. Losing them is a loss for their loved ones; however, their dying is a blessing. As Paul wrote to the Philippians, For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain (Phil. 1:21).

"I will send my terror [better translated, a terror of Me] before you and will throw into confusion all the people whom you come [against]; and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. [Ex. 23:27]

With what God had done on behalf of the Jews in the exodus from Egypt, many of those who dwelt in the land of Canaan were afraid of them. They were afraid of the Jews because of Yahweh Who led them. Rahab the prostitute told Joshua, "I know that Yahweh has give you the land, and that the terror you has fallen on us, and that all the inhaibtants of the land have become demoralized before you." (Joshua 2:9).

We find the word for thrown into confusion in Joshua 10:10a. Joshua is warring with five kings. The battle is summarized by: And the Lord confounded them before Israel, and He killed them with a great slaughter at Gibeon. This is one of the many verses which fulfills God's promise from Ex. 23:27.

Enemies turning their backs to the Jews means that they are running away from the Jews in battle. This was also fulfilled in Joshua 10:10 (as well as elsewhere): And He pursued them by the way to the ascent of Beth-horon, and struck them down as far as Azekah and Makkedah. People have their backs to you when you pursue them.

"And I will send hornets before you which will drive out [the] Hivite, Canaanite and Hittite from before you. [Ex. 23:28]

I must admit to not being positive as to the meaning of this verse. We find parallel verses in Deut. 7:20 and Joshua 24:12. When a word shows up so infrequently and the interpretation of the verse might depend upon it, one of the places to look is the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made several hundred years prior to our Lord's incarnation. They translate this word wasp, but, as the NIV notes point out, this could have been an educated guess. This Hebrew word is applied to a number of different insects, the largest of which corresponds with our English word for hornet. One theory is that these are literal hornets, a carnivorous insect whose sting is painful and, due to the large amount of injected venom, sometimes even dangerous. Since the Hebrew word also takes in the wasp, it is possibly a reference to wasps who live in large groups with their nests suspended from tree branches. A group of soldiers passing through could conceivably upset a colony and cause widespread panic either prior to a battle or even during a battle. Such a panic could reverse the outcome of a confrontation. Furthermore, we have seen what God did with the insects in Egypt, as Israel's enemies had heard, so they might have been even more skittish concerning insect attacks and the attacks could have been in reality much more devastating than normal (the latter explanation seeming to be the most reasonable for this verse).

In any case, God has prepared to land for the invasion of the Jew, in such a way that the people occupying the land would be neutralized, preoccupied or frightened. This should primarily looked upon as a promise to the Jewish people that they would be able to possess the land despite the large number of war-like peoples living in the land. We may not know the agent or agents which God has employed to enable the Israelites to defeat an displace the much more numerous, experienced and powerful groups of people who inhabit the land, but God is assuring them that this has been taken care of.

"And I will not drive them [lit., him] out from before you in one year, so that the land does not become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you. [Ex. 23:29]

God warns Moses that the control of the land—or, more sepcifically, large chunks of the land—would not materialize within a year. God will not allow the land to lie desolate for a long period of time nor allow for an overpopulation of wild animals during a time of desolation. This is elaborated upon below:

"Little by little I am driving them [lit., him] out from before you until you are increased and possess the land. [Ex. 23:30]

The Hebrew is literally little little; however, this would make little sense to us; however, little by little is a marvelous rendering of both the words and their idiomatic meaning. God will give to Israel portions of the land as they increase in population; and then He will give them another chunk of land, and then another. Their conquest of the land will not be like their leaving Egypt, which occurred in a relatively short time.

"And I will set your bounds from the Reed Sea to the sea of the Philistines and from the desert to the Euphrates [lit., the river] for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand and you will drive [lit., have driven] them out before you. [Ex. 23:31]

In the past three verses, God uses the word gârash (ש ַר ָ) [pronounced gaw-RASH], which means to drive out, to cast out, to throw out, to thrust out, to expel. In v. 29 it is the 1^st person singular, Piel perfect, 3^rd person, masculine singular with the negative; v. 30 is the same construction without the negative; and v. 31 is 2^nd person, masculine singular, Piel perfect, 3^rd person masculine plural suffix. To God, it is driving out the same entity—a large group of degenerate unbelievers who, in most cases, must be executed en masse. However, unlike the Exodus, where Israel stood idlly by and observed God drowning the Egyptians, they will fully partake in thi expulsion of the Canaanites from the land. To Israel, it will be battle after battle, so it will not seem like one man. However, the perfect tense of completed action suggests unconditional fulfillment of this promise.

As for the boundaries promised here, the Mediterranean Sea is the Sea of the Philistines; the River is the Euphrates River, and the desert is the Arabian desert. This is actually a lot larger area than Israel has ever occupied even to this day. At some point in the future, the desert will recede a great deal and the area then will even larger than we would determine now. However, this was specifically fulfilled in Solomon's day. And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates [lit., river] to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These countries brought tribute and were Solomon's subjects all his life (I Kings 4:21).

Israel does not have the option of bargaining peace with the inhabitants of the land. They must be driven out en total or destroyed. They will become a destructive, vicious cancer with whom there is no compromise. Recall the order to us of the New Testament: Be not unequally yoked. This is a principal for all time going back to the implications of this passage.

"They will not dwell in your land so that they do not make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, it will be a snare to you." [Ex. 23:33]

A snare is a trap set for an animal, and there are several words in the Hebrew which are translated snare. However, this is a snare which has bait or a lure. There are several kinds of bait which are employed. The beautiful foreign women are one type of bait. The religious activities and the false gods are another bait. Once the Jew is trapped in this snare, he does not even realize that he has been trapped. The snare of religion is very subtle. The often become moral, they are involved in religious activities, they are pursing a god of sorts (and often one gets so liberal in their thinking that they believe that it is the same God is yahweh, but with a different name.

For what unity has darkness with light? God knows that if He allows the Canaanites to dwell side-by-side with the Israelites, that there would be intermarriage; that many Israelite men would fall in love with Canaanite women and relax their religious beliefs and their tie to Yahweh. Interaction, intermarriage, business alliances, military alliances, etc. would result and these things would lead to a compromise of the principles of truth revealed by God to the Israelites. God could not allow that. Throughout the Old Testament, there are severalinstances where men of God have been unduly influenced by unbelievers and have softened their stand for God's Word.

Introduction: With chapter 24, we take a break from the laws of God and enter into a little narrative. Moses will climb the mountain and receive the ten commandments written in stone. The sons of Israel will also pledge obedience to all of God's laws in this chapter. They have seen some marvelous miracles and are willing now to vow that they will do what God tells them to do. This will not last very long, but they are sincere (showing that sincerity means little or nothing).

And to Moses He said, "Come up to Yahweh, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel and worship from afar off. [Ex. 24:1]

Come up is in the 2nd person, masculine singular, Qal imperfect, meaning that God is speaking to Moses directly, telling him personally to ascend the mountain. This indicates that God is finished giving laws at that time. Then He asks Moses to bring up what might be termed the seventy elders. From Jacob's loins, came seventy who were the seed of the nation Israel (Ex. 1:5). God always has set up a system of authority or heirarchy. Here, Moses was pre-emminent, with Aaron as his counsel and 2nd in command. The seventy served both as witnesses and as those in command of their respective groups. At this point in time, it sounds as though Moses almost randomly chose them; however, in Num. 11:16, 24–25, when Moses is asked to bring up 70 elders again, God makes it clear that they are to be carefully chosen. It was upon these that God would pour out His Spirit so that Moses could employ these men specifically as heads of state, as it were. He was shouldering too much responsibility and needed to delegate much of it (as his father-in-law had wisely suggested in the matter of the courts in a previous chapter). Moses was more qualified than anyone else to be in command at all levels; however, that does not mean that he should command at all levels. Sometimes when we find that we are good at something, we tend to go overboard and allow it to be all-consuming. It doesn't matter if you are the absolute, undisputed best; there are times to delegate authority. Because Jesus Christ is Yahweh of the Old Testament, He also chose seventy disciples early on in His ministry to go out herald His coming in every city wherein He was to go.

Worship is the 2nd person, masculine singular, Hithpael perfect of shâchâh (ה ָח ָש) [pronounced shaw-KHAWH], which means bow down. This same word is used when one prostrates himself before a ruler or a monarch. However, in an instance such as this, worship is the better translation, as worship is a bowing of the soul or of the heart, and not necessarily an overt position. We have the same word in the same stem and tense in Ex. 33:10, which reads: When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship [lit., bow down], each at the entrance of his tent. In Gen. 22:5, Abraham tells of his intention to go with his son and worship; and this is done by offering his son on the altar before God. Worship is in the plural, even though Isaac was first scurrying around for wood and then he was tied up on the altar; and Abraham was about to cut Isaac's throat, then he had to get the scapegoat. In this passage, since worship is in the imperfect (a continuous tense), all of these actions come under the heading of worship. In Gen. 24:26, 48 Ex. 4:31 12:27 Num. 22:31, we have both the physical act of bowing one's head where this is accompanied by worship. That this word does not necessarily refer to a physical position may be further implied by II Sam. 16:4

II Kings 5:18

Esther 3:2, 5 Psalm 29:2 96:9 Isa. 27:13 Ezek. 8:16. The point of all this is that they will worship by bowing down, but the will be more to their worship than that. They will have an attitude of humility, or grace orientation in their souls.

The Hithpael is the reflexive of the Piel (intensive) stem. They will cause themselves to worship and this worship will be intense. The perfect tense means that this is looked upon as a completed action; that is, they will ascend the mountain and worship, then they will return.

In case you are wondering, Nadab and Abihu are the first two sons of Aaron (Ex. 6:23). However, even though they have been chosen for this great honor, this does not mean that they can sustain any sort of a spiritual life. We are occasionally offered the chance to serve God in a wonderful capacity (I can think of several television evangelists who very likely do or did have the gift of evangelism). However, in a position of great spiritual responsibility, the penalty is also great for disobedience. Aaron's two sons both die the sin unto death in Num. 10:1–2.

Moses alone will come near to Yahweh, but the others will not come near; and the people will not come up with him. [Ex. 24:2]

Because come near is in the 3rd person, masculine singular, this means that this is not a direct quote from God to Moses, but Moses is speaking of himself in the third person (as he does throughout the Penteteuch; as is the custom for most writers of Scripture; the most notable exception being that of Luke, the Gentile). The seventy elders will apparently come to the foot of the mountain and remain there as Moses goes back up again to record the law.

Moses, throughout the Penteteuch, is a type of Christ; that is, many of his actions and his deeds portray the Lord Jesus Christ in shadow form. Whereas Moses is the one mediator between God and the people of Israel, Jesus Christ is the mediator between man and God. Moses brought the old covenant to the people of Israel, Jesus Christ presents us with a new covenant. Therefore, family of God set apart, partakers of a heavenly vocation: consider Jesus, the Apostel and High Priest of our confession. He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses was also [faithful] in all his house. For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those thing which wre to be spoken later; but Christ [was faithful] as a Son over His house whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and boast of our hope stablized until the end (Heb. 3:1–6).

And Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh and all the ordinances and all the people answered with one voice and said, "All of the words which Yahweh has spoken, we will do." [Ex. 24:3]

At this point, Moses, through the power of the Spirit, recalls all the words of God and speaks these to the people. The Israelites, a bunch of emotional misfits, pledge their emotional allegiance to Yahweh. They have seen spectacular miracles, have been the recipients of tremendous protection, and they sincerely means this pledge to God. Great sincerity when expressed by a peson with little or no substance is meaningless. Certainly you have had someone confess undying love to you. If that person does not have the character or stability to back this up, that declaration isn't good for more than twenty or thirty minutes. We are all so much in love with oureselves that when someone else seems to recognize what we have known all along, we tend to be a little less discerning. These declarations are important, but don't let them blind you concerning the person who makes them. If they are unstable; if they lack character, then what they say should not be taken as words from God. When you allow yourself to be disappointed by people because you find out that they say things because theyu sound and feel good in the moment and because all their emotion and sincerity are riding on these words, then it is your fault for being disappointed. Examine the character and then decide how much weight you want to place upon their words. With these Jews, we have the same thing. These are flaky, unstable, unfaithful men who despise God's Word. They will get so far out of line that God assigns them all the sin unto death and Moses, their mediator, stands in for them and pleads on their behalf. Without Moses as their mediator, as a type of Christ, this people, who answered with one voice, All of the words which Yahweh has spoke, we will do; this people would have been destroyed by God for their negative volition, for their refusal to obey Him

And Moses wrote all the words of Yahweh and he rose in the morning and build an altar at the foot of the mountain and twelve memorial stones according to the twelve tribes of Israel. [Ex. 24:4]

So that there is no confusion as to what Israel has promised to obey, Moses wrote these laws down. For a long time, due to mostly preconceived ideas, it was thought that there was no writing which occurred in the days of Moses, despite this clear declaration. Because we, at one time, did not have archeological evidence of writing during this time period, and because some people do not like the fact that Moses wrote prophetical statements which came true in all their details, it was taught in some liberal seminaries and colleges that Moses did not write the Penteteuch because no one had advanced far enough during this period of time to write anything. The theory was that all of the first portion of the Bible came down to us orally for several thousand years. Along with this oral tradition arose a number of errors in Biblical thought. One of them was that the Penteteuch was the work of four different sources, one of which assembled and edited everything at the end, long after Moses. Other mistaken ideas include that Moses wrote the entirety of the Penteteuch, Genesis coming to him either by direct revelation from God or through the oral tradition.

Since we have since discovered a great many writings which predate Moses by well over a thousand years

, some scholars have grudgingly admited that writing could occur in the time of Moses. Furthermore, as having been brought up in the palace of Pharaoh, Moses was likely skilled in many things, writing being just one of the many. In fact, it is also likely that Moses knew how to make the scrolls and the writing instruments that he used. Since you could not simply go down to an office supply store and pick up a packet of pens and a ream of paper, it would be almost as important to one able to write to be able to assemble the products needed for writing.

When it comes to the medium of writing, recall that we are in a desert filled with sand, very little water, and two million people and their sheep. Moses was probably able to use papyrus to make paper and he was likely able use animal skins to write upon. He certainly could write in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in Canaanite script (as Canaan was linked with Egypt at the time of Moses' early education). However, in order to communicate with the Jews, since there was a healthy population of them in Egypt during his youth, some of the better educated were able to write in Hebrew (writing which I believe pre-dated Moses by a millenium). As we have seen, his adopted mother knew of his origin and certainly would have made excuses for him to be educated in the language of his people, even if it were under the pretense of preparing him to rule over all of Egypt.

Now papyrus and animal skins (called vellum) were likely what Moses used to write on; and, by their very nature, these are not items which we would ever expect to find today. Examine if you will our comic books or hardbound books which are fifty years old—unless unusally good care was taken to preserve these items, they are showing signs of serious dissintegration already. The reason that we know writing predates Moses by so far is that some who wrote used clay tablets and stone so their writings lasted for several milleniums, providing us the evidence of early writing which I have alluded to. Jeremiah and Ezekiel both likely used clay in some of their writings (Jer. 17:13 Ezek. 4:1). There was some use made of stone even by Moses (Ex. 24:12 31:18 32:15–16 34:1, 28 Deut. 5:22 27:2–3 Joshua 8:31–32—look these up!!). Vellum is never directly mentioned in the Bible as a medium of writing. It might be inferred by Jer. 36:23; however there are some who believe that writing on animal skins cannot be dated further back than 200 bc.

Moses wrote in the evening, then got up early in the morning and built the altar. We don't know what the pillars were made of; however, they were probably not pillars as we think of them, but rather an individual stone, set up as a memorial. In the past, this had been done to commemorate an appearance of God (Gen. 28:18, 22 31:13 33:20 35:14—look these up!!); however, this was not their exclusive use; they were also used for the headstones of graves (Gen. 35:20).

And he sent young men from the people of Israel who offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed sacrifices of oxen to Yahweh. [Ex. 24:5]

What was occuring here was Moses was giving them all the gospel through these animal sacrifices; the entirety of Israel was gathered to obvserve these burnt offerings.

And Moses took half of the blood and put [it] into basins and half of the blood he threw against the altar. [Ex. 24:6]

What the sons of Israel observed before all else was all of this blood, half of it splashed upon the altar. It is this altar on which these sacrifices are offered which speaks of Jesus Christ on the cross. The Jews had to be cleansed by the blood before they could obey the Word.

Then he took the book [possibly, scroll] of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "All that Yahweh has spoken, we will do; furthermore, we will be obedient." [Ex. 24:7]

Çêpher (ר ∵פ ֵס) [pronounced SAY-fer] means document, writing, book. We first find this word used in Gen. 5:1, whcih implies that that portion of Genesis was written down (as was the rest). Moses was told to record the battle between Joshua and Amalek in a book (Gen. 17:14). This is only the third time this word is used; however, this is the word used of the Bible or portions of the Bible (Deut. 28:61 30:10 31:24 Joshua 23:6 I Kings 14:19 II Chron. 16:11 17:9 20:34 25:4 34:14–15 Nahum 1:1); of other books (II Sam. 1:18 I Kings 11:41) and it is used of documents much smaller than a book (Deut. 24:1, 3 II Sam. 1:14 II Kings 19:14). This was by no means an exhaustive look at all of the appearences of çêpher, only a representative sampling. It is possible that this refers to a scroll, of paper made with papyrus. As the reader read, he would unroll one end of the papyrus roll, they would be simultaneously, albeit with no little difficulty, be rolling up the other end of the roll.

What is the difference between this verse and v. 3? In v. 3, Moses had come down and told the Jews what God had said. In v. 7, Moses wrote these things down and read this to them again. It was not unlike verbally agreeing to a contract and then putting everything down on paper which you have agreed to. Again, the Jews cry out that they will obey God's word and do all that God has said to them. It sounds great until we read further into God's Word about this generation of believers. Furthermore, Heb. 10:28–29 tells us: Anyone who has disregarded the Law of Moses, as per two or three witnesses, dies without pity. How much more severe the punishment do you think he will deserve—the one trampling under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of Grace?

And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people and said, "Behold, the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has made with you in accordance with all of these words." [Ex. 24:8]

Kârath (תר ) [pronounced kaw-RATH] and it means to cut, to cut off (Gen. 17:4 Deut. 19:5 20:20 Isa. 18:5 Jer. 6:6); however, it is used a number of times to mean make a covenant (Gen. 15:18 21:27, 32 Ex. 23:32 Deut. 4:23 I Kings 8:9). Several Bible translations give the literal or the alternate translation as cut in an instance like this; however, I think that this is a case of two different Hebrew words which are spelled the same. There is the possibility that they are the same word, related in some way; I just see the relationship.

The blood on their robes was a witness against them. They have given tacit approval to God's Word as it concerns their lives. These are people who are dedicating and rededicating; they are making vows before God. They are not just believers in Jesus Christ; they have made Him Lord over all. This is the emotional ferver and pitch of a revival. And it means little or nothing. Moses bathes them in the blood as (1) a symbolic gesture; (2) to remind them of this vow that they are making; and (3) the sprinkling of the blood after they have given testimoney to their faith indicates the application of justification to those who have believed. In the same way, [Jesus took] the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant by means of My blood; do this as often as you drink, in remembrance of Me." (I Cor. 11:25) But now He [Jesus Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator or a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises (Heb. 8:6).

Then Moses went up; and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel. [Ex. 24:9]

Although all of these nouns are connected with a series of ands; we know that Moses is seperate and is the subject of our sentence as went up is in the 3rd person, masculine singular. He goes up and they are with him, but they wait behind. Back in Ex. 19:12, God told Israel, "Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall certainly be put to death." (Ex. 19:12b) Has God withdrawn this prohibition? Certainly not. God requested for Moses to bring these men to witness His glory and to prepare themselves for true leadership. God is not going to suddenly strike them dead and point out, "I didn't say Simon says." When God called for Moses to bring the others part way up with him, this is divine permission to ascend the mountain.

In v. 10, we have several different opinions as to how to translate the last half:

The Amplified Bible ...and under His feet it was like pavement of bright saphire stone, like the very heavens in clearness

The Emphasized Bible ...and under his feet like a pavement of saphire, and ike the very heavens for brightness [or, purity]

KJV ...and there was under his fet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in its clearness

NASB ...and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clearf as the sky itself

NIV Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself

Young's Lit. Translation ...and under His feet is as the white work of sapphire, and as the substance of the heavens for purity

As we deal with this translation, realize that we are dealing with figurative language. There is no as it were following under His feet. This is the translators' way of telling us that this language is figurative. I will leave this out of my translation and leave it to the reader to recognize that the language is more poetical or impressionistic than literal. What these men saw they had never seen before; Moses—a master of at least two languages and probably three or more—will use a unique word to describe what he saw. What we are getting here is I'm not sure exactly what it was, but this is what it looked like.

We have the bêth preposition (in, into, at, by, on, upon—the key here is proximity) and the construct of ma‛ăseh (ה ∵ְַע ַמ) [pronounced mah-as-EH], which is translated in a dozen different ways; it means work, accomplishment, deed, business, pursuitthat which is manufactored or made. It is a very common word found a couple hundred times throughout the Old Testament. This is followed by the construct of lib^enâh (ה ָנ ׃ב ̣ל) [pronounced liv-NAW] and this is our problem word. It occurs but once in the Old Testament. It is very simlar to the word for brick, tile and also similar to the word for making brick; both of which are related to a word translated white. The color of the brick (white) made seems to be prominent in the meaning of the verb (see Psalm 51:7 Joel 1:7). In fact, there are four words, moon, tile, poplar, and lib^enâh which differ only in vowel points. The use of the word work means that what they were seeing was unnatural. That is, below our Lord's feet was not ground, or a rock, but something which looks to be someone's handiwork. The separation is what is important here—God is perfect and cannot have contact with that which is imperfect. God is holy and righteous and His perfect character cannot come into contact with anything less. We have two prepositions which make this stand out: under His feet followed by the bêth preposition denoting proximity (on, upon).

This pavement is made of the sapphire stone, which is the second hardest naturally occuring mineral. It has a blue tint to it. Again, this is figurative language—Moses is doing the best that he can explainnig what it is that he is seeing. It is as though the Lord is standing upon a work of paving, not white exactly, but as though someone had made a paving of the precious stone sapphire. Whatever it is, it is clear but casts a light bluish tint, as we will see. It's not like water, but a hard, paved surface.

We then have a the waw conjunction and the bêth preposition again and a word we would not expect: ‛etsem (ם ∵צ ∵ע) [pronounced EH-tsem] which means bone, body, substance, self. This is a very unusual word; remember when Adam pronounced the woman as bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh? Or when Noah entered into the ark on the selfsame day—it is the same word. The could be the same spelling of two different words or a word with two divergent meanings connected by the idea that it refers to the inner structure of whatever is named; as a reference to people, it is their bones; in reference to the word day, it would refer to the body or the structure of the day. This word shows up in one or two completely different places: this passage and Job 21:23 when it reads: one dies in his own strength.

The lâmed preposition means with reference to; tôhar (ר ַהֹט) [pronounced TO-har] is a word used but three times (it is also found in Lev. 12:4 & 6) and if it were not for the verb cognate, which means purify, cleanse, we would not know its meaning.

And they saw the God of Israel and under His feet [which were] upon a work of pavement of sapphire stone and in the very structure of the heavens with reference to clearness [or, purity]. [Ex. 24:10]

The alternate reading given this vers in The Emphasized Bible is wonderfully poetic: And they saw the God of Israel; and under his feet like a pavement of sapphire, and like the substance of the sky for purity. We have to clarify the they did not see God, per se, but a manifestation of God, as God is a Spirit and no man has seen God at any time.However, this manifestation is so unlike anything that Moses has ever seen, that he waxes poetic to describe it. Even the ground beneath our Lord was like a huge, flat saphire stone, pure and blue as the heavens. It's as though God is insulated by the heavens and by this footing from the evil world in which we live. Note that the description of Moses only is in reference to where the manifestation of God stood. Other than that, there is no description of how God manifested Himself to them.

And He did not stretch out His hand against the prominent men of the people of Israel; they beheld [lit., saw] God and ate and drank. [Ex. 24:11]

The men chosen out from the children of Israel to observe all of this were not seeing God Himself, but a manifestation of Him. They also saw the flooring beneath God and a description of same was almost beyond their vocabulary. What is amazing, as so stated in this verse, is that they saw a manifestation of God and were still able to live. God is holy and we are anything but; and in the ancient world, when someone without regeneration and without being temporally cleansed by rebound (personal confession of sins to God), anyone this close to God would have been struck dead. We have never seen before a closer relationship between God and a group of men. We seen it with individuals, but not with a group.

Eating and drinking can represent two rather antithetical things. In the times of Noah, people were eating a drinking and marrying and giving hand in marriage; this indicates a total absorbsion in the things of the world to the exclusion of Jesus Christ. This would not be the place to insert a booze sermon. However, in this context, this is a covenant meal between God and these men (similar covenant meals have occurred in Gen. 26:26–31 and 31:44–55). In the New Testament, we have a similar ordinance, the Lord's Supper, in which we celebrate the new covenant (I Cor. 11:23–26). The other take on this verse is that, although they saw God, these men survived and were able to eat and drink. On the one hand, they were granted special permission to ascend the moutain; however, I believe that their eating and drinking herein mentioned was more significant than to testify that they were still alive, having beheld God's glory.

And Yahweh said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and wait there and I will [or, must

] give you tables of stone with the law and the commandments which I have written for their instruction." [Ex. 24:12]

The Jewish people, particularly the religous ones, horribly distorted the law and its purpose. It was not the end-all, be-all in religious practice for Israel. God promised Israel a Savior, a Deliverer, a Messiah. If the Law was all they needed, why would God send a Savior? Why must God establish a different priesthood? However, along with the Law, God also promised the Messiah, a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4). The writer of Hebrews expressed this point in Heb. 7:11: Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizekek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

There is still this structure of authority and this mediatorship. God does not work directly with these men; he works through Moses to reach them with the law and they will in turn speak to those under their charge. Part of this is logistics, but most of the reason for this behavior is to make it clear that we must go through a mediator to get to God. The mediator for all of Israel was Moses and, even beneath him, was another structure of authority which presented the law. Similarly in our time, Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man and the role of the pastor teacher is to present God's Word to the populace.

Paul refers to these tables of stone written on by the finger of God. The Corinthians began to question his Paul and his place over them, asking for letters of reference concerning his authority, Paul responds: You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and examined by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, ministered to under our authority, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts (I Cor. 3:2–3).

So Moses rose with his servant Joshua and Moses went up into the mountian of God. [Ex. 24:13]

It has become clear to Moses that his replacement will be Joshua; Joshua is one or two generations behind Moses, but he is faithful in all things and he believes strongly in Yahweh. He is one of the very few of his generation who recognizes and understands most of what is going on.

And to the elders he said, "Wait for us here until we come again to you. And see that Aaron and Hur [are] with you; whoever [is] an owner of a cause, let him go to them." [Ex. 24:14]

V. 14 near the end is poorly rendered. At best, it is less than literal in most Bibles. It begins with the interrogative mîy (י ̣מ) [pronounced mee] and, in general, it means who, whoever. Then it is not followed by whoever has a cause (Owen), or if any man have any matters (KJV), or whoever has a legal matter (NASB); it is the construct of the noun bâ‛al (ל ַע ָ) [pronounced BAW-al] and it means master, owner, lord, husband; although it is often modified by whatever noun happens to follow; which, in this case, is the râbâr (ר ָב ָּ) [pronounced daw-VAWR] and it means word, speech, matter, cause. This is a matter which has become so pressing that this person has decided to follow the seventy up onto the moutain to speak with Moses. They are to halt this person in their tracks and solve the problem. And for those of the seventy who have a matter or a problem that they are the masters or the owners of, they are to go to Aaron or Hur. Hur is a man that we have only heard of one time before; he helped kept Moses' arms up during the first battle of Israel in Ex. 17:10–13.

Then Moses went up on the moutain and the cloud covered the moutain. [Ex. 24:15]

Just as our Lord on the cross was covered by a thick darkness, Moses was also covered by a thick, inpenatrable darkness, a cloud which allowed only him to commune with God directly. Again, Moses is a type, being held up between heaven and earth directly facing God, covered with a thick cloud, just as occured with Jesus Christ. The purpose of the thick cloud with our Lord was two-fold: (1) to give Him privacy as He bore our sins in His own body on the cross; such a thing was akin to being naked in a group—it was not just embarrassing, it was a disgrace and a humiliation to Him. (2) When it comes to salvation, all come to God through faith in Jesus christ, including those who were at the crucifixion. No one can do anything but believe in Him. They were unable to see God punish our Lord for our sins even at Golgotha. Moses is covered by a thcik cloud as a type of Christ and to further accentuate his exclusive mediatorship (which, in itself, is a characteristical type of Christ).

And the Glory of Yahweh settled upon Mount Sinai and six days the cloud covered it. And He called to Moses on the seventh day out of the midst of the cloud. [Ex. 24:16]

Other than the momentary glance which the elders had of the manifestation of God, they have not gone for six days without hearing or seeing anything. We do not know what Moses did, whether he continued in prayer, whether he spend much of this time climbing the mountain. He had been ordered by God to write and he likely took with him writng utensils and a medium upon which to write. He will need this as God will speak to him for the next forty days and there will be at least the next eight chapters which are dictated to Moses by God. However, it is not necessary that this was the extent of the communication. Other portions of the Law could have been written during this time also. It is possible that during these six days Moses completed the book of Exodus up until this point. We are not given any details.

Now the appearance of the glory of Yahweh [became] like a consuming [or, devouring] fire on the top of the mountain in the sight [lit., eyes] of the people of Israel. [Ex. 24:17]

Moses has been up on the mountain for six days and suddenly the glory of Yahweh appears. To those below, to the elders and to even the rest of Israel, all they can see is an incredible display of fireworks. The description here is not unlike that of a volcano; however, we have no accompanying lava or earthquakes. However, they know approximately where Moses is and they see on the seventh day an incredible all encompassing fire from that area. The words are the construct of the Hebrew word for fire (also used for lightning, as we have seen) and the Qal active participle for the verb eat. Consuming or devouring are good translations. This is more likely a reference to incredible lightning which completely encompasses and ocnsumes to top of Mout Sinai as lightning would accompany a black cloud. In the blackness, the lightning stands out even more. And we know that our God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29).

And Moses entered the cloud and went up on the mountain and Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights. [Ex. 24:18]

This portion of God's Word was written after the fact. It is a summary of the time factor which will be incorporated into the rest of Exodus until Ex. 32. This describes his leaving the seventy, entering into the cloud, and being taken out of their sight. It also gives us a time factor so that we understand the movtivation behind the golden calf incident which will follow Ex. 32. Jesus Himself fasted for forty days and forty nights.

Introduction: Chapter 25 find Moses in the presence of God once more, furitively writing down what God is telling him. In this chapter, we find a clear declaration of the doctrine of giving and the directions for the building of certain articles which would be found in the tabernacle. These articles would represent our Lord Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. The tabernacle and its contents would give us a complete Christology for the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit through these various items would reveal Jesus Christ to Israel and they would chose to believe or not.

As we will see hundreds of times in the books of Moses and throughout the Old Testament, that God often spoke directly to the writers of Scripture.

"Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me an offering from every man whose heart willingly offers it. You will receive the offering for me. [Ex. 25:2]

This vers e is obviously not tithing—it is spiritual giving. It is a freewill offering on the part of the giver. There is no coercian involved here. We have here the 3rd masculine singular, 3rd masculine singular suffix, Qal imperfect of nâdab (ב ַד ָנ ) [pronounced naw-DAB] and it means to willingly offer (it can refer to a freewill offering and it could refer to giving of oneself in war or willingly offering oneself over to the military). We need to add an it here for the suffix, making this from every man whose heart willingly offers it. See Judges 5:2 I Chron. 29:9, 17 Ezra 3:5 for examples of this word. An intresting sidelight to the linguist: this word is found only in the historical books—Exodus through Nehemiah—it is not found in any of the writings nor in any of the prophetical books.

Time after time after time we have fundamental preachers telling us to give 10%. You must understand that their motivation is the suppport their own ministry. They aren't certain that God will do it, so they have learned to put their own hand out and beg. We as believers are to give of our substance to God. God gave us the monetary blessing and we recognize this by giving a portion of it back to him. This is the mark of a matruing believer. Someone who just drops a dollar of a five into the offering plate as a prefunctatory action part and parcel fo being in church, or the person who every week or every month, as he gets his paycheck, writes out a check to the church for 10% of that, thinking that he must do that or he won't be blessed or God won't give him good luck—these people are mistaken. As Thieme used to so aptly put it, "Don't think that you can bribe God with 10% of your mesly income."

We are to give as motivated by our hearts (II Cor. 9:7) and as God has prospered us (II Cor. 8:14). There is a certain cause and effect relationship involved; but our continued prosperity is not based upon our giving, but upon our positive voltion toward God and our continuing maturity, which results in certain spiritual works such as giving (II Cor. 9:6). God provides the means from which we can give (II Cor. 9:8–11). However, this giving must be done in the power of the Spirit, which is indicated by the word love, in I Cor. 13:3a.

"And this is the [content of the] offering that you will receive from them: gold and silver and bronze. [Ex. 25:3]

God has a specific task in mind and will require specific items to be given in order to build the tabernacle and its furnture. Gold speaks of the deity of Jesus Christ; silver refers to redemption (see Ex. 30:11–16); and bronze is related to judgement (Scofield gives the examples the brazen, or bronze, altar and the serpent of bronze—Ex. 38:30 39:39 Num. 21:6–9).

"Blue and purple and things of scarlet things and fine twined linen and goat's hair. [Ex. 25:4]

This is the first mention of material which has been dyed in the Bible. The nuts and bolts of the actual process are never given in the Bible, partially because many crafts were passed down in certain families, therefore many of the secrets never written down (or if they were written down, the formulae were kept secret). So it was with the dyeing industry. Since then, we have discovered that blue and purple dyes came from the various shellfish which are found in the northeastern Mediterranean. According to The New Manners and Customs of the Bible, the scarlet dye came from ground lice eggs, indigo from the pomegranate rind, purple from the murex shellfish and blue also came from the murex shellfish, although there was a variation in the process to change the color. This was such a major industry (obtaining and manufactoring these dyes) that Canaan was named after this area of manufactoring (Canaan means land of purple). Purple is a color of royalty and blue is a color which represents heaven or heavenly in nature or origin

Scarlett is a dye gotten from the eggs and carcasses of cochineal insects while in the larva state. These worms were crushed in order to squeeze out the dye. The word used for scarlet and the word used for worm are the same two Hebrew words (which are sometimes transposed); context determines whether it is the dye or the worm crushed for the dye (the worm crushed for the dye is analgous to Jesus Christ bearing our sins on the cross). This obviously speaks of the blood of Christ, who was crushed for our iniquities, bruised for our transgressions; the chastening for our peace [with God was] upon him (Isa. 53:5). But I am a worm, and not a man—a reproach of men, and despised by the people. All who see me sneer at me; they separate with the lip [a facial scorning], they wag the head, [saying, "Commit to the Lord; let Him deliver Him; let Him rescue Him, because He delights in Him.(Psalm 22:6–7).

Fine linen is made from thread which is spun from the fibers of flax straw. The Egyptians had very high quality linen, so white and woven so tight that at times only a magnifying glass will distinguish it from silk. Fine linen was a material of choice for Egyptian royalty. This speaks of our Lord's royalty. Goat's hair, as one might gather, is a strong, black

, very coarse hair from long-haired goats used to weave tents.

Once the wool is removed, we are left with something akin to present day Moroccan leather. Dying this red represents exposing the humanity of Jesus Christ (the leather; his human flesh) to the judgement for our sins. The next word is translated sea cows (clarified by the footnote, that is, dugongs) by the NIV, badgers by The Emphasized Bible, goatskins by Owen, fine leather by the NRSV and dolphin (or porpoise) skins by The Amplified Bible. Obviously, we have a bit of diasgreement here. In any case, what we have here is likely rare and expensive leather.

Although we are not entirely positive, the acacia wood is from the Shittim wood (one Biblical reference is to the tree rather than the wood). It is a tree which flourished in barren regions, much darker and harder than oak, a wood avoided by termites and other wood-devouring insects. This speaks of the humanity of Jesus Christ in a barren earth, Himself being the only perfect man. The barreness of the land is just like the barreness of our earth when it comes to finding a righteous man, since not one is righteous who dwells on the earth. However, since these trees were common, Jesus appeared to be just like any man from the outside (his enemies could never seem to recognize Him, would often lose Him in a crowd and they required Judas to point Him out). Only His sheep could hear His voice. The fact that wood burrowing insects would not burrow into this wood speaks of His uncompromised and perfect humanity.

In order for us to obtain the skin of thee animals, they must die. It is their skins that we wear which offer us protection from the elements and this symbolizes putting on Christ to shield us from the judgement of God. The acacia wood speaks of the humanity of Jesus Christ.

"Oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense. [Ex. 25:6]

Oil is often used to refer to the Holy Spirit, Who indwells us and gives us power and substance, as the oil of a lamp. Without the oil, a lamp is useless. The spices and incense speak of propitiation toward God the Father. It is because of the sweet savor of our Lord dying on our behalf on the cross that God forgives us. The spices themselves will be mentioned in Ex. 30:23–24, 34. The incense was sacred and was used for nothing other than worship. They used frankincnese, resin from under the bark of of the boswellia tree, galbanum (which was likely the gum of a Persian plant) and two ingredients which are still unknown today, stacte and onycha

(Ex. 30:34–38).

"Onyx stones and stone for setting for the ephod and for the breastpiece. [Ex. 25:7]

Stones are used in memorials, to represent permanence, and for foundations upon which to build. Precious stones refer to royalty and these stones will be ennumerated in Ex. 28:17–20. The ehpod is the upper garment worn by a priest. It was made of fine white linen for the priests and it was multicolored and was ornately embroaidered for the high priest. The high priest alone wore this breastplate, which went over the ephod. Inset on this breastplate were 12 precious stones, each stone representing one tribe. This was used to determine God's will at certain points in Israel's history.

A very early theme of Old Testament theology is that God would dwell among His people. He would be in their midst. This is because in the future, God would literally dwell in the midst of his people Israel when He would take upon Himself the form of a man and dwell among us. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in teh beginning with God. All things came into being by means of Him; and apart from Him, nothing came into being that has come into being. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we behld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1–3, 14).

The word sanctuary comes from the Hebrew word miq^edâsh (ש ָד ׃ק ̣מ ) [pronounced mik-DAWSH] and it means a sacred place, a place set apart to God. We might think of a sanctuary as physically set apart—perhaps out in the mountains; however, this is a sanctuary which has been spiritually set apart. It also indicates a place of safety and blessing; God is said to become a sanctuary for us in Ezek. 11:16.

Now the main point in what has been said: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord put together, not man (Heb. 8:1–2). This does not mean that in heaven there is a tabernacle just as has been described in this chapter, because the earthly tabernacle is a copy of the heavenly tabernacle, not vice versa. It means that there is a place in heaven which is a dwelling place for God so to speak, where He receives angels and judges (Job 1:6–12). In this holy place, there were but three items of furniture: the ark of the covenant (actually, more of a chest), the golden lampstand and the table of shewbread (to quote the King James' English).

"You will build [this] according to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture. [Ex. 25:9]

God intends for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed by the tabernacle and by the furniture; therefore, this cannot be some slip-shod operation. God is not going to tell the artisans of Israel to build him a house and make it really really nice with a lot of ornate fixtures and breath-taking design. That would be man's handiword, which we find in church after church, and it would speak to man's glory and not to God's.

Again the theme of God living among us is germain to the word tabernacle. A tabernacle is almost exclusively a reference to a temporary dwelling place of God (Ex. 26 36 Lev. 26:11 Ezek. 37:27–28) and it rarely refers to a place for man (Jer. 30:18 Hab. 1:6). And I will dwell among the sons of Israel and I will be their God. And they will know that I am Yahweh, their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them; I am Yahweh, their God (Ex. 29:45–46). "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they will be His people and God Himself shall be among them." (Rev. 21:3b).

A tabernacle was a moveable tent, designed (1) for Israel's nomatic lifestyle, (2) to represent that Israel was not in the land yet, (3) to represent that this earth is not our permanent home but a temporary dwelling place, (4) to represent that this body that we live in is a temporary dwelling place for our souls and not our permanent home. The tabernacle had several different, but related names. It was called the tabernacle of testimony because it contained the ark which contained the tables of the law (or the tables of testimony) along with the other items which condemned sin in man (Ex. 38:21). Because God met the people there, it was called the tent of meeting (Ex. 40:34). Because God manesfested His Presence there, it was called the house of Yahweh (Ex. 34:26). The Levites were to be the ones in charge of the tabernacle (Lev. 18:2–4).

"They will make an ark of acacia wood, 2½ cubits in length [lit., its length] and 1½ cubits deep and 1½ cubits high. [Ex. 25:10]

The Ark is mentioned first because the Ark represents Jesus Christ most fully, along with the plan of God. Therefore, it is the first item to be described in detail.

It was not until I read What the Bible Really Says that I realized how far out people have gotten about this ark. Some have thought that the ark was a kind of electircal storage battery and gave the one(s) who possessed the ark superhuman powers. An Erich von Däniken though that it was possible that the ark was an electronic relay system which monitored transmissions from spacecraft hovering above our planet sending us messages of spiritual benefit to our spiritually bereft planet. Alchemists of he Middle Ages thought that the ark contained a philosopher's stone which allowed various metals to be turned into gold

. However, the Bible more than adequately describes the contents of the ark. They might not be quite as exotic or nearly as humorous but the Bible is clear as to its contents and their meanings:

So that we have a feel for the size of the ark, cubits were based upon the measure of the arm. The Latin word, cubitus, means lower arm; and the Hebrew word means mother of the arm, i.e., the forearm. People disagree as to whether there are two or three different meanings for cubits in the Old Testament. Some differentiate between the cubit of a man (Deut. 3:11), cubits according to the first measure (II Chron. 3:3), and great cubits (Ezek. 41:8). People estimate the Mosaic cubit to be anywhere from 12 to 22 inches. I would lean toward the longer length, as the Babylonian and Egyptian cubit is nearly 21 inches. However, most agree that the Mosaic cubit is 18 inches and that a longer cubit was adopted after the Babylonian captivity. This makes the ark three to four feet long and two or more feet in height and width

The wooden ark represents the humanity of Jesus Christ. It is a container (or a chest, as the NIV puts it), just as our bodies contain our souls. This container's contents reveals our Lord's essence and our depravity. This chest contained three items, which, for some reason, does not appear to be enumerated in the Law. The ark of the covenant, covered on all sides with gold, in which there was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). After awhile, only the two tablets containing the ten commandments was in the ark (I Kings 8:9). The tablets of Law did not delineate sin in its entirety, which we have studied, but revealed enough about sin (i.e., it revealed the basis of all law) to condemn us eternally for our actions. As defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, we have each likely broken every single commandment, as most of us have lusted after a person who was not our right man or right woman (you will not commit adultery) and most of us have hated some person at one time or another (you will not murder). Although few of us have some representation of deity that we carry around, all of us have placed an whole host of things before God and our relationship with Him, making us idolators. The golden jar (or, pot) of manna speaks of God's daily provision for us and our rejection of that. Because of the rebellion of Korah and the people who followed him, God killed 14,700 Israelites (Num. 16:49). To reaffirm the spiritual leadership of the Levites and their mediatorship, Aaron's rod of the twelve rods of the twelve tribes budded—that is, miraculously brought forth buds, blossoms and almonds (Num. 17:8). This was placed in the ark as a witness against the rebellion of the Israelites so that they would not have to face death for making the mistake of rebelling against God (Num. 17:10). I personally believe that Aaron's rod that budded also speaks of our eventual resurrection. So what we have in the ark is three aspects of sin: sin as a rebellion against God, sin as a rejection of God's provision, and sin as a transgresion of God's Law. We all stand guilty of these sins and these three items in the ark stand as a witness against us, as they did against the people of Israel.

The ark traveled with the Israelites thoroughout the desert, even to the point of preceeding them into battle (Num. 3:30–31 Joshua 6) and had a prominent place in the lives of the Israelites (it is mentioned dozens of times in Scripture: Num. 10:33 Josh. 3:3–17 Judges 20:27 I Sam. 3:3 4:1–11 5:1–11 etc.). The ark itself sat in what will be called the holy of holies. It is an area inside the tabernacle in which only the high priest could go. This is going directly before the presence of God. Our High Priest, Jesus Christ, Who makes intercession for us, can go directly before the Father on our behalf. Prior to the cross, a man wold be arrogant to think that he could stand before God and today it is only in Christ that we could stand before God.

Scofield had an interesting comment. When God dictated this information to Moses, He begins with Himself with regards to the furniture of the tabernacle and works outward to man. Man, outside the tabernacle, moves toward God in the holy of holies

. In a similar way, even at the Levitical offerings, man begins at the cross (the brazen altar) and moves toward God (Lev. 1–5).

Archeology has turned up a similar ark in the funeral furniture of King Tutankhamun (circa 1350 bc), and finds in Nimrud and Samaria have turned up similar altars, dated sometime later. Contemporary shrines are similar in form, construction and size.

"And you will overlay it with pure gold within and without you will overlay it; and you will make upon it a molding of gold round about. [Ex. 25:11]

The gold (not mixed with silver or any other alloy) represents the undiminished, uncontaminated diety of Jesus Christ; the wood and the gold together represent His hypostatic union. You must udnerstand that this ark could have been metal or all gold mixed with silver or a number of other things. God chose it to made out of things which would convey the idea of that which is earthly and that which is heavenly.

"And you will cast four gold rings for it and put them on its four feet; two rings on the side of it and two rings on the other side of it. [Ex. 25:12]

The word for rings is tabba‛ath (ת ַע ַ ַט ) [pronounced tab-BAH-ath], and, although the NIV claims that this word means house, it is used exclusively in the Bible for rings (signet rings in Gen. 41:42, as a gift in Isa. 3:21, and most often for the sacred furniture, as here). This may be similar, however, to our English word housing, which I have seen used often in a mechanical sense, such as the housing for various parts of a car (these things are placed into the housing). Man will touch and handle that of Jesus Christ which is His divine power—or, more accurately, the divine power of the Holy Spirit working through Him. When our Lord comes and walks among men, He will touch them and heal their sicknesses and infirmities; they will touch even the hem of His garment and be healed.

"And you will put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark by them. [Ex. 25:14]

This is more than just a mater of convenience—there will always be some distancing between God and man in the Old Testament. Man is innately corrupt and God is absolute perfection, so there is no fellowship which can take place except through the mediator.

"In the rings of the ark, the poles will remain—they will not be taken from it. [Ex. 25:15]

"And you will put into the ark the testimony [i.e., legal evidence and/or the sworn testimony] which I will give you. [Ex. 25:16]

Rather than saying this is a list of the things which will be placed in the ark, God uses the word ׳êdûwth (תד ֵע ) [pronounced ģay-DOOTH] and it means testimony. The NIV says that this is closely related to the Babylonian word for covenant stipulations. Surprisingly, the KJV is quite consistent on this translation; however, our concept of testimony in the courts confuses the issue somewhat. Strong’s #5715 BDB #730. This is the legal evidence and/or the sworn testimony of God. I do not have a better word or words by which to define this. This is the evidence which exposes man for what he is and also reveals God's character for what it is. This testimony will be the tables of the law, written by the finger of God (Ex. 31:18 Heb. 9:4).

"Then you will make a mercy seat [lit., a cover] of pure gold, 2½ cubits in length and 1½ cubits in width. [Ex. 25:17]

Mercy seat obviously became the more popularized name, as God spoke to Moses from above this covering, making it a throne of sorts (Ex. 25:22 Num. 7:89). However, this Hebrew word is kappôreth (ת ∵רֹ ַ ) [pronounced kap-POH-reth] and it is a covering placed over sin. It comes from the verb which we translate cover, propitiate; and therefore is better represented as a covering. Strong’s #3727 BDB #498. We were covered by the promises of God in the Old Testament until Christ came at the perfect time to die for our sins. When God looks at us, He does not see us but rather He sees His mercy seat, His covering, which is the perfect work of our Lord Jesus Christ. When God looks to us, He sees His Son. Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, Whom God displayed publicly as a covering (propitiation, mercy seat) by means of His blood, through faith, a demonstration of His righteousness (Rom. 3:24–25a). And He Himself is the covering for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world (I John 2:2).

God does not yet tell Moses what will go into the ark, or the chest. What will go in there, the testimony against us, will that which condemns us. This will be all of the legal evidence needed in order to convict us. However, before He condemns us, God makes provision to cover this. So God tells Moses how to build the cover first; then He will tell us what the ark is to contain—those things which will makes us stand condemned before God.

"And you will make two cherubim of gold of hammered work you will make them on the two ends of the mercy seat [lit., covering]. [Ex. 25:18]

The cherubim, or angels, represent the the righteouness and justice of God. God's perfect character is in the forefront and it is His perfect character which must be satisfied in order for man to have fellowship with Him. Furthermore, these represent angelic creation, who bend over and watch intently at what transpires on this earth. God's greatest work is His salvation that He has provided for us; the cherubim looking down upon the cover are witnesses to this great work on our behalf (I Cor. 4:9). The cherubim are above us, so to speak, looking down, and God is enthroned above them (II Kings 19:15 Psalm 99:1).

Some people are confused by this verse and those which describe the ornate items which would be kept in the tabernacle. They think that this somehow contradicts the second commandment prohibiting idolatry. The idolatry mentioned in the commandment (which is not the only kind of idolatry) specifically refers to the construction of idols for the purpose of worshipping them. We are not to worship the statues which were designed to represent the world we cannot see. The reason for this is that these idols would represent demons and those who worshiped the statue would be worshipping the demons behind the statue. However, there is a great reality to which we are not visually privy, which includes all of angelic creation. The elect angels form a great cloud of witness encompassed about us watching intently all of our moves. We are witnesses before them, as well as before man. We are not to worship the cherubim who are on the cover of the ark; but we are to be cognizant that they are there.

"Make one cherub on the one end and one cherub on the other end with the mercy seat you will make the cherubim on its two ends. [Ex. 25:19]

Both God's perfect justice and His perfect righteousness must be satisfied. His justice must be satisfied by all that is sin, all that is evil and all that is wrong must be punished; and His perfect righteousness can only have fellowship with that which is perfect.

"And the cherubim will spread out their wings above, overshadowing with their wings the mercy seat, their faces one to another; the faces of the cherubim will be toward the mercy seat. [Ex. 25:20]

God looks upon the covering, the mercy seat, Jesus Christ when He sees us—this is the focus of his righteousness and justice. They are not independent characteristics acting in separation from one another but two cohesive elements which make up the perfect character of God, both acting in tandem.

"And you will put the mercy seat on the ark with regards to the upper portion [or, upon and above the ark]. And in the ark you will place the legal evidence and/or sworn testimoney that I will give you. [Ex. 25:21]

We miss a lot in the English translation here. Following on the ark we have two prepositions and an adverb of location. We have the preposition of separation, a preposition to, for, in regard to and the adverb (or substantive in this case) meaning the higher part, the upper portion. The mercy seat is simply the covering of the ark, placed over the ark, with two angels, one at each end, both facing toward each other and looking down at the covering.

"There I will meet you and I will speak with you from above the mercy seat from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony of all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel. [Ex. 25:22]

This is where God the Father meets with us—upon Jesus Christ, our one true, unfailing mediator.

"And you will mae a table of acacia wood two cubits in length, one cubit wide and 1½ cubits high. [Ex. 25:23]

When something speaks of Jesus Christ, it will be made of acacia wood and overlain with gold.

"And you will overlay it with pure gold and make for it a molding of gold around. [Ex. 25:24]

The molding of gold is God the Holy Spirit, the power in which Jesus Christ operated. He did not function within His own diety on earth. All of His miracles were done in the power of the Spirit.

"And you will make for it a frame a handbreadth wide around and you will make a molding of gold around the frame. [Ex. 25:25]

"And you will make for it four rings of gold and fasten the rings to the four corners at its four legs. [Ex. 25:26]

Just like the ark, these rings will be used for poles to be put through in order to carry it around.

"The rings will lie close to the frame as holders for poles to carry the table. [Ex. 25:27]

Again, we will have no direct contact with the frame except through the poles, which represent Jesus Christ.

"You will make the poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold; and the table will be carried with these. [Ex. 25:28]

Our direct contact in this life is with Jesus Christ first. We have no fellowship with God until we have come to Him through His Son. There is no Mohammed, no Buddha, no Joseph Smith that we go through to get to God. "For there is but one name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. There is no salvation in anyone else." (Acts 4:12, transposed)

"And you will make its plates an dishes and its flagons with which to pour libations—you will make them of pure gold [Ex. 25:29]

Jesus Christ used eating and drinking to represent salvation through believing in Him. Anyone can eat and drink; these are nonmeritorious abilities that we have. Our bodies act automatically to shut off the trachia as the food comes down our throats and it is routed into our digestive system. We did not have to go to college to know how to do this. It occurs naturally. It is a nonmeritorious function in our life by which we are kept alive. If our system did not automatically breathe and guide our nourishment, we would die. Yet all men, good, bad, moral, immoral, amoral can each and drink and this does not interfere with our breathing eaven though both seem to go through the same traffic signal. Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; but the water that I will give him shall become in him a well of water spring up to eternal life." (John 4:13–14) Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:35)

This verse deals with that which is more commonly known as shewbread. The words here are the masculine singular construct of bread (the construct simply means bread of). This is followed by the noun pâwneh (ה ∵נ ָ ) [pronounced paw-NEH] and it means face. However, in the very poetic Hebrew language, this word stands for presence; for instance, in Gen. 4:16a we

The analogy drawn here to the cross is incredible.
The Judgment of Egypt is a Shadow of Salvation by Jesus Christ
Moses, the Jews and Egypt	Jesus Christ, Believers and the World
God's people, the Jews, are trapped in the Egypt (Ex. 1:8-14).	Mankind is trapped in the world as unbelievers (John 18:36)
God called the Jews out of Egypt (Ex. 3:15–17).	God calls believers out of the world (John 15:19).
The Jews had an identify separate from the Egyptians, even though they lived in Egypt (Ex. 1:7).	We have an identity which is separate from the world, even though we live in the world (Acts 13:17 John 15:19 Rom. 12:2).
The Egyptians hated the Jews (Ex. 1:8–14).	The world hates the believer (John 17:14).
Moses, a savior, is sent by God to deliver His people (Ex. 3:9–10).	Jesus Christ, our Savior, is sent by God to deliver us (Heb. 3:16 John 4:42 I Tim. 1:15).
Moses was not a slave and qualified to deliver His people and to lead them out of Egypt (7:22–23, 25, 34).	Jesus Christ is not a slave to sin, He is not of this world, and He has come to deliver us out of this world (John 8:23 17:11, 14).
Moses performed signs and miracles to show that he was from God (Acts 7:36).	Jesus Christ performed signs and miracles to show that He was from God (John 7:36).
Moses was a servant of God (II Kings 18:12 II Chron. 24:6 Neh. 9:14).	Jesus Christ is a servant of God (Matt. 12:18).
The only way that the Jews (and the Egyptians who joined them) could be delivered was to trus in Jehovah Elohim (Ex. 1:17–21).	The only way that we can be delivered is to trust in Jesus Christ (John 8:24).
Moses, because of the notoriety of the exodus, became a light to the world (Ex. 9:16).	Jesus Christ, due to His own notoriety, is a light to the world (John 8:12 9:5).
The Jews, because of this, are also a light to the world (Ex. 10:23 Isa. 10:17).	We are a light to the world ourselves (John 9:5 Phililp. 2:15).
Egypt was judged for her sins (Ex. 11:1 12:12).	The world is judge for its works (John 12:31 16:8).
Egypt was covered with a thick, eerie darkness in one of its judgments (Ex. 10:21–22).	Golgotha was covered with a thick, impenetrable darkness when Jesus was on the cross.
The Jews were called by God out of slavery.	We are slaves of sin, called out of that slavery by God.
The Jews would be delivered from the bondage of slavery after the death of the firstborn.	We are delivered from the bondage of slavery by the death of God’s firstborn.

What I need at this point is a chart which covers the miracles/plagues of God upon Egypt:
The Plagues God Brought Against Egypt
Scripture	The Request and/or the Plague	Who did the talking and the miracles	What happened	Possible Significance	Pharaoh’s Reaction
Ex. 5	No plague but a request for Israel to celebrate a feast to God in the desert-wilderness.	Although it reads they said, what we find in Ex. 4:10–17 6:28–30 seems to indicate that Aaron did all the talking this time.	The Pharaoh asks “Who is Jehovah that I should obey His voice?” Pharaoh then does not allow the Jews to use straw when making bricks without reducing their work quota.	God gives the Pharaoh a chance to obey without threats of a negative consequence.	The Pharaoh is negative of his own volition.
Ex. 6:1–7:13	A request for Israel to go out of the land and no plague against Egypt was levied	Aaron did the talking and he threw down the staff which became a snake.	Pharaoh’s magicians also came in with staffs and they threw them down and the staffs became serpents as well.		Pharaoh’s heart is hardened (whether by himself or by God is not clear)
Ex. 7:14–25	Pharaoh is asked to let the Jews go so that they may serve God in the desert-wilderness. The Nile water is turned to blood—the first plague.	Aaron strikes the bank of the Nile with his staff and the water turns to blood. Aaron probably did the talking.	The fish in the Nile die and the water becomes putrid. The water could not be drunk. The Egyptians apparently dug wells in order to fetch water to drink.	God first must judge and blood speaks of judgement. This is why Jesus’ first public miracle was turning water into wine. That speaks of blessing.	Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, but it is not clear by whom.
Ex. 8:1–15	Same request; the smiting of frogs—second plague.	Aaron stretches his hand over the waters of Egypt and frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt. Moses, however, speaks directly to Pharaoh.	Moses tells Pharaoh that the timing is up to him; whenever he wants the frogs to be destroyed who are among the people, God would do that. Moses called upon God, and the frogs died. The dead frogs were piled into great heaps all over Egypt and became foul.		Pharaoh hardens his heart. He does not listen to Moses and Aaron.
Ex. 8:16–19	The plague of the gnats (or, lice)—the third plague.	God tells Moses to tell Aaron to strike the ground.	The dust of the earth becomes gnats (or, lice); gnats are on every man and beast.	Magicians of Pharaoh admit they cannot duplicate this miracle and say it is from God.	Pharaoh’s heart is hardened.
I must admit being uncertain about separating these two plagues. If they are the same plague, then there are nine plagues; if they are separate, then there are ten plagues. Most separate these plagues. Also, there is a fair amount of repetition in these events. This particular event stands out because Pharaoh’s magicians say that this miracle is of God; little else is said about this plague.
Ex. 8:16–32	Moses requests a 3-day journey into the desert-wilderness; the plague of the insects—fourth plague.	God tells Moses to tell Pharaoh, “Thus said Jehovah: ‘Let My people go...or I will send...swarms of insects.’ ”	God sent swarms of insects to the Egyptians, but He did not so inflict the Jews. Pharaoh calls for Moses and Aaron and tells them to sacrifice to God within the land; Moses says, “No, we must go a 3-day journey away from Egypt.” Pharaoh initially agrees and asks Moses to make supplication for him.	These are possibly the gold scarabs (or beetles) that are often found in Egyptian tombs.	God removed the insects as per Moses’ request and Pharaoh hardened his heart again.
Note two things: Moses does the talking this time and God differentiates between the Jews and the Egyptians.
Ex. 9:1–7	The fifth plague: The Egyptian livestock die.	God tells Moses to speak to Pharaoh.	All of the Egyptian livestock in the field died; none of Israel’s livestock died.		Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.
Ex. 9:8–12	The sixth plague: boils.	God speaks to Moses and Aaron and tells Moses to throw handfuls of soot into the air.	This soot becomes boils which break out on man and beast.	The magician could not even stand before Pharaoh because of the boils.	Jehovah hardens Pharaoh’s heart this time.
Ex. 9:13–35	The seventh plague of hail.	God tells Moses to speak to speak to pharaoh and warns them to keep all men and cattle inside, or the hail will kill them.	Hail struck down everything in the field—men, animals and plants. No hail fell upon Goshen, the land of the Jews. Moses, at the request of Pharaoh, went out of the city, spread his hands, and the severe weather stopped	Egypt is a land of very little precipitation. A storm as described here is unheard of.	Pharaoh’s heart is hardened and he does not let the Jews go, despite his promises to Moses.
Ex. 10:1–20	The eighth plague: the locusts.	Jehovah tells Moses to speak to Pharaoh. Moses and Aaron go together.	Pharaoh is warned to let the Jews go, or the next day his land would be hit by locusts, which would eat everything the hail missed. Moses says that all of the Jews, children and cattle included, would go to a feast out in the wilderness. Pharaoh refuses (he won’t let the children go). Locusts come over the land and eat all of the plants. Pharaoh repents, the locusts are removed, and he changes his mind.		God hardens the heart of Pharaoh.
Ex. 10:21–29	Darkness over the land—the ninth plague.	God tells Moses to stretch his hand toward the sky.	A thick darkness is over the land for three days. However, the Israelites had light in their dwellings.	God is the light of the world.	Jehovah hardens Pharaoh’s heart. Pharaoh warns Moses not to come back
Ex. 11 :1–12:33	The tenth plague: death of the firstborn.	God tells Moses what to do.	Silver and gold is asked for from the Egyptian people by the Jews and they show favor to the Jews. The Passover is instituted and all those who observe the Passover are passed over.	Those who are under the blood of Jesus Christ are not killed.	The Pharaoh calls for Aaron and Moses and tells them to take the people out of Egypt.
It is very possible that each plague was identical in pattern; God speaks to Moses and Aaron; Moses and/or Aaron warn Pharaoh of what is to come. Pharaoh refuses to let Israel go. God brings the plague upon Egypt through the hand of Moses (or Aaron). Pharaoh agrees to let Israel go if God removes the plague. God removes the plague and Pharaoh’s heart is hardened once more against God. Some of these plagues have few details (e.g., the plague of the lice); however, the lack of detail does not mean that historically the pattern of events suggested are those which came to pass.
I may need to spend some time dealing with the significance of some of these plagues.

The Amplified Bible	...but showing mercy and steadfast love
The Emphasized Bible	...but shewing lovingkindness
KJV	...and showing mercy
NASB	...but showing loving kindness
NIV	...
NRSV and Owen's	...but showing steadfast love