Exodus

Notes on
Exodus
2 0 1 0 E d i t i o n
Dr. Thomas L. Constable
Introduction
TITLE
The Hebrew title of this book (we'elleh shemot) originated from the ancient practice of
naming a Bible book after its first word or words. "Now these are the names of" is the
translation of the first two Hebrew words.
"The Hebrew title of the Book of Exodus, therefore, was to remind us that
Exodus is the sequel to Genesis and that one of its purposes is to continue
the history of God's people as well as elaborate further on the great themes
so nobly introduced in Genesis."1
Exodus cannot stand alone in the sense that it would not make much sense without
Genesis. The very first word of the book, translated "now," is a conjunction that means
"and."
The English title "Exodus" is a transliteration of the Greek word exodos from the
Septuagint translation meaning "exit," "way out," or "departure." The Septuagint
translators gave the book this title because of the major event in it, namely, the Israelites'
departure from Egypt.
"The exodus is the most significant historical and theological event of the
Old Testament . . ."2
DATE AND WRITER

Moses, who lived from about 1525 to 1405 B.C., wrote Exodus. He could have written it
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit any time after the events recorded (after about
1444 B.C.). He may have written it during the year the Israelites camped at the base of
Mt. Sinai. He may have done so during the 38-year period of wandering in the wilderness
following the Israelites' failure to enter the land from Kadesh Barnea (cf. Num. 13-14; ca.
1443-1405 B.C.). On the other hand he may have written it on the plains of Moab just
before his death (cf. 16:35).3
1Ronald Youngblood, Exodus, pp. 9-10.

2Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 57.
3On the date of the Exodus, see my note at the end of 12:37-42; or John D. Hannah, "Exodus," in The Bible
Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 104-5. On the Mosaic authorship of Exodus, see my note on
the writer of Genesis and the sources referred to there, in my notes on Genesis. Kenneth Kitchen, "The Old
Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan," Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin (1971):4-
8, also has helpful background information on the Mosaic authorship of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Copyright © 2010 by Thomas L. Constable

Published by Sonic Light: http://www.soniclight.com/
2 Dr. Constable's Notes on Exodus 2010 Edition
SCOPE
Exodus embraces about 431 years of history, from the arrival of Jacob and his family in
Egypt (ca. 1876 B.C.) to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai (ca.
1445 B.C.). However 1:1-7 is a review of Jacob's family. If we eliminate this section, the
narrative resumes the story of the Israelites where Genesis ends, after the death of Joseph.
About 364 years elapsed between the death of Joseph and the building of the tabernacle.
The bulk of the book (chs. 3—40) deals with only two of these years, the year before and
the year after the Exodus from Egypt. The Exodus event is clearly the focus of this book.
The Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years (12:40). Genesis 15:13 has the round number 400
years as the time of Israel's oppression in Egypt.4
PURPOSE
"The purpose of the Book of Exodus is to celebrate God's gracious

deliverance of His chosen people Israel from Egyptian slavery to the
freedom of covenant relationship and fellowship with Him."5
GENRE
Like Genesis, Exodus contains a mixture of literary genres, including narrative, poetry,
legal, and cultic.6
IMPORTANCE
"No other biblical book surfaces elsewhere in the OT as frequently as the

Book of Exodus does; in the NT only the Books of Psalms and Isaiah are
cited more, and that for the fairly obvious reasons of liturgy and
messianism."7
"The deliverance of Israel out of Egypt by Yahweh in the Old Testament

is parallel in importance to the resurrection of Christ in the New
Testament. The historicity of these events is a critical foundation for a
proper understanding of the rest of the Bible."8
Deuteronomy, as does Gleason L. Archer, "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Moses to
David," Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):99-106.
4See the "Chronology Chart for Exodus" in John Davis, Moses and the Gods of Egypt, p. 14.
5Eugene H. Merrill, in The Old Testament Explorer, p. 41.
6Herbert M. Wolf, An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch, p. 127.
7John I. Durham, Exodus, p. xxiii.
8J. Daniel Hays, "An Evangelical Approach to Old Testament Narrative Criticism," Bibliotheca Sacra
166:661 (January-March 2009):13.
2010 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on Exodus 3
OUTLINE
I. The liberation of Israel 1:1—15:21

A. God's preparation of Israel and Moses chs. 1—4
1. The growth of Jacob's family 1:1-7
2. The Israelites' bondage in Egypt 1:8-22
3. Moses' birth and education 2:1-10
4. Moses' flight from Egypt to Midian 2:11-15
5. Moses' life in Midian 2:16-25
6. Moses' call 3:1—4:18
7. Moses' return to Egypt 4:19-31
B. God's demonstrations of His sovereignty chs. 5—11
1. Pharaoh's response to Moses and Aaron's initial request 5:1— 6:1
2. Moses and Aaron's equipment as God's messengers 6:2—7:7
3. The attestation of Moses and Aaron's divine mission 7:8-13
4. The first three plagues 7:14—8:19
5. The fourth, fifth, and sixth plagues 8:20—9:12
6. The seventh, eight, and ninth plagues 9:13—10:29
7. The proclamation of the tenth plague ch. 11
C. God's redemption of His people 12:1—13:16
1. The consecration of Israel as the covenant nation 12:1-28
2. The death of the first-born and the release of Israel 12:29-36
3. The exodus of Israel out of Egypt 12:37-42
4. Regulations concerning the Passover 12:43-51
5. The sanctification of the first-born 13:1-16
D. God's completion of Israel's liberation 13:17—15:21
1. The journey from Succoth to Etham 13:17-22
2. Israel's passage through the Red Sea ch. 14
3. Israel's song of deliverance 15:1-21
II. The adoption of Israel 15:22—40:38
A. God's preparatory instruction of Israel 15:22—18:27
1. Events in the wilderness of Shur 15:22-27
2. Quails and manna in the wilderness of Sin ch. 16
3. The lack of water at Rephidim 17:1-7
4. The hostility of the Amalekites 17:18-36
5. The friendliness of Jethro the Midianite ch. 18
B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant 19:1—24:11
1. Preparation for the Covenant ch. 19
2. The Ten Commandments 20:1-17
3. The response of the Israelites 20:18-21

4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22—23:33
5. The ratification of the Covenant 24:1-11
C. Directions regarding God's dwelling among His people 24:12—31:18
1. The revelation of these directions 24:12-18
2. Contributions for the construction of the sanctuary 25:1-9
3. The tabernacle furnishings 25:10-41
4. The tabernacle structure ch. 26
5. The tabernacle courtyard 27:1-19
6. The investiture of the priests 27:20—28:43
7. The consecration of the priests 29:1-37
8. The service of the priests 29:38—30:38
9. The builders of the tabernacle 31:1-11
10. The sign of the Sabbath 31:12-18
D. The breaking and renewing of the covenant chs. 32—34
1. The failure of Israel ch. 32
2. The re-establishment of fellowship ch. 33
3. The renewal of the covenant ch. 34
E. The construction and dedication of the objects used in Israel's worship chs.
35—40
1. Preparations for construction 35:1—36:7
2. Execution of the work 36:8—39:43
3. The erection and consecration of the tabernacle ch. 40
In an interesting and original chart of Exodus, Ted Grove suggested the following
structural outline of Exodus.9
I. Israel's liberation chs. 1—18

A. Israel's affliction (Israel is Egypt's possession) 1:1—2:14
B. Deliverance 2:15—18:27
Ted saw the following chiastic structure in this section.
A Midian: Moses' commission 2:15—4:28

B Enemy: Egypt defeated 4:29—15:21
C Water: bitter to sweet and 12 springs 15:22-27
D Food: manna and quail ch. 16
C' Water: out of rock 17:1-7
B' Enemy: Amalek defeated 17:8-16
A' Midian: Moses accepts wisdom ch. 18
9Ted was a student in my Old Testament History I course in the spring of 1991.
II. Israel's adoption chs. 19—40

A. Covenant delivered 19:1—24:11
B. Sanctuary planned 24:12—31:18
C. Covenant broken ch. 32
D. Covenant renewed chs. 33—34
E. Sanctuary's construction 35:1—40:33
F. Covenant sealed (Israel is God's possession) 40:34-38
Ted also saw a chiasm in this part of the book.
A Covenant delivered 19:1—24:11

B Tabernacle planned 24:12—27:21
C Priestly instructions chs. 28—30
D Craftsmen's direction 31:1-11
E Sabbath instructions 31:12-18
F Covenant broken ch. 32
F' Covenant renewed chs. 33—34
E' Sabbath reminded 35:1-3
D' Craftsmen and construction 35:4—38:31
C' Priests prepared ch. 39
B' Tabernacle completed 40:1-33
A' Covenant sealed 40:34-38
The center of the first chiasm is the manna. The center of the second chiasm is the tablets
of the Law. These were the two items God instructed Moses to preserve in the ark of the
covenant.
Ted saw the key verse of the book as 34:9.

Exposition
I. THE LIBERATION OF ISRAEL 1:1—15:21
"The story of the first half of Exodus, in broad summary, is Rescue. The
story of the second half, in equally broad summary, is Response, both
immediate response and continuing response. And binding together and
undergirding both Rescue and Response is Presence, the Presence of
Yahweh from whom both Rescue and Response ultimately derive."10
A. GOD'S PREPARATION OF ISRAEL AND MOSES CHS. 1—4

1. The growth of Jacob's family 1:1-7
The purposes of this section are three at least.
1. These verses introduce the Israelites who are the focus of attention in Exodus.
2. They also tie the Israelites back to Jacob and explain their presence in Egypt.
3. They account for the numerical growth of the Israelites during the 360 years that
elapsed between Genesis and Exodus following Joseph's death and preceding
Moses' birth.
Moses used the round number 70 for the number of Jacob's descendants when the
patriarch entered Egypt (v. 5; cf. Gen. 46:27).11 The writer's purpose was to contrast the
small number of Israelites that entered Egypt with the large number that existed at the
time Exodus begins (vv. 8ff.), about two million individuals (cf. 12:37; 38:26; Num.
1:45-47). It is quite easy to prove mathematically that Jacob's family of 70 that moved
into Egypt could have grown into a nation of two million or more individuals in 430
years.12
The fruitfulness of the Israelites in Goshen was due to God's blessing as He fulfilled His
promises to the patriarchs (v. 7).
2. The Israelites' bondage in Egypt 1:8-22

This pericope serves a double purpose. It introduces the rigorous conditions under which
the Egyptians forced the Israelites to live, and it sets the stage for the birth of Moses.
1:8-14 The new king (v. 8) may have been Ahmose (Greek Amosis) who founded
the eighteenth dynasty and the New Kingdom and ruled from 1570 to
1546 B.C. However, he was probably one of Ahmose's immediate
successors, Amenhotep I or, most likely, Thutmose I. The Egyptian capital
10Durham, p. xxiii.
11For a good short history of Egypt, see Hannah, pp. 105-7; Youngblood, pp. 20-25, or Siegfried
Schwantes, A Short History of the Ancient Near East, pp. 51-109.
12See Ralph D. Winter, "The Growth of Israel in Egypt (The Phenomenon of Exponential Growth)," a
paper published by the Institute of International Studies, Pasadena, Ca., 14 April 1993.
at this time was Zoan (Gr. Tanis). Ahmose was the first native Egyptian
Pharaoh for many years. Preceding him was a series of Hyksos rulers.13
The name Hyksos probably means "rulers of foreign lands."14 They were a
Semitic people from the northern part of the Fertile Crescent who had
invaded Egypt about 1670 B.C. and ruled until Ahmose expelled them.
The New Kingdom (ca. 1570-1085 B.C.) that Ahmose inaugurated was
the period of greatest imperial might in Egypt's long history.
"In the Late Bronze Age [ca. 1500-1200 B.C.], Egypt

entered her period of Empire, during which she was
unquestionably the dominant nation of the world.
Architects of the Empire were the Pharaohs of the
Eighteenth Dynasty, a house that was founded as the
Hyksos were expelled from Egypt and that retained power
for some two hundred and fifty years (ca. 1570-1310),
bringing to Egypt a strength and a prestige unequaled in all
her long history."15
Mediterranean Sea 100 miles
Zoan*
LOWER (Tanis) * Raamses
(Avaris)
EGYPT
* Pithom
(Heliopolis)
Memphis*
MIDIAN
ANCIE NT
EGYP T Gulf of Suez Gulf of Aqabah
Mt. Horeb
UPPER (Sinai)
EGYPT ^
* Tell el Amarna Red Sea
13See Aharon Kempinski, "Jacob in History," Biblical Archaeology Review 14:1 (January-February
1988):42-47.
14John Van Seters, The Hyksos, p. 187.
15John Bright, A History of Israel, p. 98.
The title "Pharaoh" means "great house." It originally designated the

Egyptian king's residence and household. It became a title for the king
himself for the first time in the eighteenth dynasty.16
The implication of the statement that Pharaoh "did not know Joseph" in
the Hebrew text is that he did not know him because he did not want to
know about him. It seems that the early kings of the eighteenth dynasty
wanted to solidify control of Egypt in the hands of native Egyptians. After
a long period of control by foreigners, they did not want to acknowledge
the greatness of Joseph who was, of course, also a foreigner and a Semite.
"Forgetfulness of Joseph brought the favour shown to the

Israelites by the kings of Egypt to a close."17
IDENTIFICATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT PHARAOHS

AFTER JOSEPH AND IN EXODUS18
SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (dynasties 15-16; ca. 1674-1567 B.C.). Capital:

Avaris (Raamses). Period of Hyksos rule.
NEW KINGDOM (dynasties 17-20; ca. 1570-1085 B.C.). Capital: Tanis (Zoan). Period
of imperial supremacy.
Ahmose (Amosis; 1570-1546 B.C.; 1st Pharaoh of 18th dynasty) expelled the
Hyksos and re-established native Egyptian rule.
Thutmose I (Thutmosis I; 1525-ca. 1512 B.C.; 3rd Pharaoh of 18th dynasty)
practiced genocide on Hebrew male babies (Exod. 1:15-22).
Hatshepsut (1503-1482 B.C.; 5th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty) was the
daughter of Pharaoh Thutmose I who drew Moses out of the Nile and later ruled
as Queen (Exod. 2:5).
Thutmose III (1504-1450 B.C.; 6th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty) was the
Pharaoh of the oppression who tried to kill Moses and from whom Moses fled
into Midian (Exod. 2:15).
Amenhotep II (1450-1425 B.C.; 7th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty) was the
Pharaoh of the plagues and the Exodus (Exod. 3:10—15:19).
Pharaoh launched three successive plans to reduce the threat of the sizable
Hebrew population that then was larger and stronger than the Egyptian
ruling class (v. 9).
The first plan (plan A) was to make the Hebrews toil hard in manual labor.
Normally a population grows more slowly under oppression than in
16Walter C. Kaiser Jr., "Exodus," in Genesis-Numbers, vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 288.
17C.F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 1:421.
18Based on the Cambridge Ancient History. All identifications are probable.
prosperous times. However the opposite took place in the case of the
Israelites (v. 12). Physical oppression also tends to crush the spirit, and in
this objective the Egyptians were somewhat successful (2:23-24).
Verse 10 should read as follows. "Let us (the entire Egyptian ruling class)
deal wisely with them (the Israelites) lest they . . . in the event of war
(with enemies, the Hyksos, or any other) . . . join themselves to those who
hate us and fight against us and depart from the land."19
This plan remained in effect for some time. It probably took years to build
the cities of Pithom and Raamses (Ramses, Rameses), which the
Egyptians used to store goods (cf. 1 Kings 9:19; 2 Chron. 8:6; 17:12).
Pithom may be Tell er-Retabeh or Heliopolis, and Raamses may have
been Qantir.20
"The name 'Rameses' for one of the store cities seems to
point unquestionably to Rameses II [ca. 1300-1234 B.C.].
But it is probable that this city, which already existed under
the Hyksos (the foreigners who ruled Egypt several
centuries before the nineteenth dynasty), was rebuilt by
Rameses II and that 1:11 refers to the city by its later name
. . . ."21
There are several instances of the writer or a later editor using more
modern names for older sites in the Pentateuch, such as "Dan" in Gen. 14.
"The brick was the staple of Egyptian architecture, as only
the temples and palaces were constructed of stone."22
This plan failed to reduce the threat that the Israelites posed to Pharaoh, so
the Egyptians adopted a second approach.
1:15-22 Plan B consisted of ordering the Hebrew midwives to kill all the male
Hebrew babies at birth. Albriight confirmed that these women's names
were Semitic.23
"They were to kill them, of course, secretly, in such a way
that the parents and relatives would be unaware of the
crime, and would think that the infant had died of natural
causes either before or during birth."24
19See Gleason L. Archer Jr., "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):24-25.
20See Kaiser, p. 289; and Charles F. Aling, "The Biblical City of Ramses," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, 25:2 (June 1982):128-37.
21William H. Gispen, Exodus, p. 22. Cf. Wolf, pp. 143-45. See also my note on Gen. 47:11.
22F. B. Meyer, Devotional Commentary on Exodus, p. 19.
23W. F. Albright, "Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century
B.C.," Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954):233.
24Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, p. 12.
"Infanticide was commonly practiced by the nations of

antiquity."25
As I mentioned, plan A (vv. 9-14) may have been in effect for several
years. Because of the chronology of Moses' life many evangelical
commentators felt that the Pharaoh the writer referred to in verses 15-22
was Ahmose's successor, Amenhotep I (1546-1526 B.C.). More likely he
was the man who followed him, Thutmose I (1525-ca. 1512 B.C.).
"Although the biblical term 'Hebrew' [v. 15] is probably
cognate to the similar word 'apiru (found in Egyptian,
Babylonian, and Canaanite texts), the latter was applied to
a population element that was ethnically diverse and that
had in common only a generally inferior social status. The
word 'Hebrew' is almost always used by Gentiles to
distinguish Israelites ethnically from other peoples and
apparently denotes descent from Eber (Gen. 10:24-25;
11:14-17), whose ancestor was Noah's son Shem (Gen.
10:21)."26
The two midwives mentioned by name (v. 15) were probably the chief
midwives who were responsible for others under them.27
Ancient Near Easterners preserved national identity through the males,
and it is for this reason that Pharaoh ordered their deaths. In contrast,
modern Jews trace their ethnic identity through their mother. The change
evidently took place during the Middle Ages. One writer suggested that
Pharaoh spared the girls, "perhaps to serve later as harem girls."28
The midwives' fear of God (vv. 17, 21) led them to disobey Pharaoh's
command to practice genocide. They chose to obey God rather than man
since Pharaoh's order contradicted a fundamental divine command (cf.
Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7). All life belongs to God, so He is the only person who
has the right to take it or to command when others should take it. The
midwives' fear of God resulted in their having reverence for human life.
Their explanation of their actions (v. 19) may have been truthful or it may
not have been entirely truthful.
"Even though these women lied to Pharaoh (which the
Bible, as is often the case, does not stop to specifically
condemn at this point), they are praised for their outright
refusal to take infant lives."29
25Meyer, p. 20.
26Youngblood, p. 27.
27See Watson E. Mills, "Childbearing in Ancient Times," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):54-56; and
Nahum M. Sarna, "Exploring Exodus—The Oppression," Biblical Archaeologist 13:1 (June 1986):77-79.
28Gispen, p. 36.
29Kaiser, p. 306.
God blessed these women with families of their own (v. 21) in spite of
their deceit, if they practiced it, because they feared God.
This second plan "miscarried" too.
The intent of plan C was also to do away with the male Hebrew babies (v.
22). However instead of relying on the Hebrew midwives Pharaoh called
on all his subjects to throw every Hebrew boy that was born into the Nile
River. Since the Egyptians regarded the Nile as a manifestation of deity,
perhaps Pharaoh was making obedience to his edict an act of worship for
the Egyptians. This plan evidently failed too. The Egyptians do not appear
to have cooperated with Pharaoh. Even Pharaoh's daughter did not obey
this command (2:6-8). This plan, too, may very well have continued in
effect for many years.
The Pharaoh Moses referred to in verse 22 was probably Thutmose I.30
"The central idea [in this pericope] is that God faithfully fulfills His
covenant promises in spite of severe and life-threatening opposition. Even
Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth could do nothing to thwart God's
purpose. In fact, God actually used Pharaoh's opposition as a means of
carrying out His promises."31
"It is interesting to note that the author has placed two quite similar
narratives on either side of his lengthy treatment of the Exodus and
wilderness wanderings. The two narratives are Exodus 1—2, the Egyptian
king's attempt to suppress Israel, and Numbers 22—24, the Moabite king's
attempt to suppress Israel. Both narratives focus on the futility of the
nations' attempts to thwart God's plan to bless the seed of Abraham . . ."32
3. Moses' birth and education 2:1-10

"Whilst Pharaoh was urging forward the extermination of the Israelites,
God was preparing their emancipator."33
". . . among other things, the Pentateuch is an attempt to contrast the lives
of two individuals, Abraham and Moses. Abraham, who lived before the
law (ante legem), is portrayed as one who kept the law [Gen. 26:5],
whereas Moses, who lived under the law (sub lege), is portrayed as one
who died in the wilderness because he did not believe [Num. 20:12]."34
30See Davis, p. 51.

31Gordon H. Johnston, "I Will Multiply Your Seed [Exodus 1]," Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall
1986):27.
32John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, p. 242.
33Keil and Delitzsch, 1:426.
34John H. Sailhamer, "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch," Westminster Theological
Journal 53 (Fall 1991):243.
2:1-5 The names of Moses' parents were Amram and Jochebed (6:20).
"At this point Scripture's aim is to inform us that from an
ordinary man, . . . and from an ordinary woman, . . . whose
names there was no need to mention [at this point], God
raised up a redeemer unto his people."35
It is not clear from the text if Moses was an unusually beautiful child
physically or if he was distinctive in some other respect (v. 2). One
commentator translated "beautiful" as "healthy."36 The phrase used to
describe him in Hebrews 11:23, as well as the Hebrew word used here,
can have a broader meaning than physical beauty. Josephus claimed that
God had revealed to Amram in a dream that Moses would humble the
Egyptians.37 There is no scriptural support for this tradition; it may or may
not be true.
Jochebed and Amram hid Moses because they trusted God (v. 3; Heb.
11:23-26). The same Hebrew word translated "wicker basket" in this verse
(tehvah) reads "ark" or "boat" in English translations of Genesis 6:14. As
Noah's ark was God's instrument for preserving one savior of the human
race, Moses' ark proved to be His means of preserving another savior of
the Israelites. Moses' parents obeyed Pharaoh and put Moses in the river
(1:22), but they also trusted God who delivered their baby.
"Ironically Jochebed, putting her son into the Nile, was in
one sense obeying the Pharaoh's edict to 'throw' baby boys
into the river! (Ex. 1:22)"38
"There is abundant warrant, afforded by this narrative, for
Christian parents to cast their children upon God."39
Moses' older sister was probably Miriam. She is the only sister of Moses
mentioned in Scripture (v. 4; Num. 26:59).
The daughter of Pharaoh (Thutmose I) was probably Hatshepsut who was
a very significant person in Egyptian history (v. 5). She later assumed co-
regency with Thutmose III and ruled as the fifth Pharaoh of the eighteenth
dynasty (1503-1482 B.C.). The ruling class in Egypt was male dominated,
and it took a very forceful woman to rise and rule. Queen Hatshepsut
adopted certain male mannerisms to minimize objections to her rule
including the wearing of a false beard that appears on some Egyptian
pictures of her.40
35Cassuto, p. 17.
36Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus, p. 18.
37Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 2:9:3.
38Hannah, p. 109.
39Meyer, p. 26.
40See Merrill Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament, pp. 144-45; Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible
History, p. 86, n. 9; and Francis Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, 1:502.
It was not uncommon for Pharaohs and other Egyptians to bathe

ceremonially in the sacred Nile River, as many Indians do today in the
Ganges River. The Egyptians believed that the waters of the Nile
possessed the ability to impart fruitfulness and to prolong life.
Several women were involved in the events surrounding Moses' birth: the
midwives, Pharaoh's daughter, her maid, Moses' sister, and Jochebed.
How ironic it was that women, whom Egyptian and Israelite men looked
down on as less significant than themselves, should have been responsible
for saving Israel's savior! Truly the hand of God is evident. The Gospel
writers also recorded that several women ministered to Jesus Christ, the
Savior of the world, during His first advent.
2:6-10 As the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter, Moses enjoyed the highest
privileges in his education. In commenting on Moses' training Stephen
said that he became, "a man of power in words and deeds" (Acts 7:21-22).
Josephus wrote that Moses was a general in the Egyptian army that
defeated the Ethiopians and that he married the daughter of the king of
Ethiopia.41 We cannot prove the accuracy of this statement, but it suggests
that Moses may have risen high in Egyptian society before he fled Egypt.
Moses' name was probably Egyptian, but it became a popular Hebrew
name. It relates obviously to the names of other great Egyptians of that
period (e.g., Ahmose, Thutmose, et al.). The "mose" part of the name
means "one born of," and "mo" means "water."
"The phrase 'drew him out' (v. 10) is a Hebrew pun on the
name, emphasizing the baby's rescue from the waters of the
Nile."42
This name became even more appropriate as Moses' great life work of
drawing the Israelites out of Egypt took shape. Ancient Near Easterners
regarded the waters of the sea as a very hostile enemy because they could
not control them. The Egypt of Moses' day was such a hostile foe for the
Israelites. In this sense Moses' name proved prophetic. Moses' name may
have been longer and may have had some connection with the name of an
Egyptian god, as the other "mose" compound names referred to above did.
If this was the case, "in refusing to 'be called the son of Pharaoh's
daughter' Moses was actually refusing reference to an Egyptian deity."43
The fact that Moses later chose to identify with the Israelites rather than the Egyptians is
remarkable in view of his Egyptian privileges and background. His parents must have had
a strong influence on him beginning very early in his life (cf. Joseph). We should never
underestimate the power of parental influence even early in life. Note too that the faith of
a child can grow stronger when tested by an ungodly environment.
41Josephus, 2:10:1.
43Nichol, 1:504.
4. Moses' flight from Egypt to Midian 2:11-15
Moses was "approaching the age of 40" (Acts 7:23) when he took his stand for his
Hebrew brethren (v. 11). The reference to the Hebrew man as "one of his brethren"
suggests that Moses' motivation in acting as he did was love that sprang from faith in
God's promises to the patriarchs. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews stated this
motivation explicitly in Hebrews 11:24-26.
Moses' desire to help his brethren was admirable, but his methods were deplorable (v. 12;
cf. Acts 7:23-29). He trusted in his own ability to liberate the Israelites and sought to
bring this about by natural means. He even resorted to sinful means and seized authority
rather than waiting for God to bestow it on him.
". . . there is in the [Hebrew] text no suggestion that Moses meant to kill
the Egyptian, any more than that the Egyptian or the Hebrew man was
attempting to kill his adversary."44
"You can never redress a nation's wrongs by offering brute force to brute
force, or by a number of rash, violent acts."45
God had to teach Moses that he must not trust in his own ability but rely on God's
strategy and strength and obey His commands. God drove Moses out of Egypt to the
desert of Midian where He proceeded to teach His servant these lessons. He made him "a
prince" and "a judge" (v. 14) eventually. Here Moses rescued an Israelite from an
Egyptian who was beating him, but later he rescued all the Israelites from the Egyptians
who were oppressing them (3:10).
The Pharaoh referred to here was probably Thutmose III (v. 15; 1504-1450 B.C.) whose
reign included a period of 21 years as co-regent with Hatshepsut. Pharaoh probably tried
to kill Moses by having him brought to justice through normal legal channels.
The land of Midian lay to the east of the Sinai Peninsula and probably flanked the Gulf of
Aqabah on both sides.46 Moses ran a long way. The Midianites were descendants of
Abraham through Keturah (Gen. 25:1-2).
"Midianites were employed in the copper mines of the Sinai Peninsula by

Egyptian kings since the very first dynasties."47
Moses' faith is obvious in his desire to identify with God and His people. He probably
struggled in his younger years with whether he could do more for the Israelites by
working for them within the Egyptian hierarchy or without. He chose to identify with the
faithful and relied on the power of God to a limited extent rather than on the power of
44Durham, p. 19.
45Meyer, p. 32.
46On the difficulty of locating Midian exactly, see Durham, p. 20.
47Schwantes, p. 158.
Pharaoh to accomplish his goals. It was Moses' faith in God that led him to give up Egypt
(Heb. 11:24-26).
God commands all who trust Him to separate from the world system that opposes and
excludes Him (Rom. 12:2; et al.). This may or may not involve physical separation,
depending on God's will. For Moses it involved physical separation, but for Joseph and
Daniel it did not. The will of God is not the same for everyone in this respect.
5. Moses' life in Midian 2:16-25
This section introduces some of the secondary characters in Exodus and sets the stage for
Moses' call. Its purpose is primarily transitional.
Moses provided water for Jethro's daughters and their sheep in the wilderness (vv. 16-
17). Later he provided water for God's people and their flocks in the wilderness (cf. 17:6;
Num. 20:7-11). This was the third time Moses sought to deliver others from harm (v. 17;
cf. vv. 12-13).
As "the priest of Midian" (v. 16) Reuel ("friend of God," v. 18) was the spiritual head of
his branch of the Midianites. Moses' father-in-law had at least two names: Reuel (or
Raguel, 2:18; Num. 10:29) and Jethro (or Jether, 3:1; 4:18; 18:1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12). He
appears to have been a worshipper of the true God (cf. 18:12-23). At this time he may
simply have been a God-fearing Semite.
Moses' years in Midian were years of bitter humiliation. He gave expression to his
feelings by naming his first son Gershom (v. 22), meaning "banishment."
"The pride and self-will with which he had offered himself in Egypt as the
deliverer and judge of his oppressed brethren, had been broken down by
the feeling of exile."48
Moses lived in Midian "many days" (v. 23) before Pharaoh (Thutmose III) died. Stephen
said it was a period of 40 years (Acts 7:30).
". . . Moses is at home in the author's view because he has come at last to a
people who worship the God of his fathers. The Moses-Midian connection
is theological. Suggested deftly in this climactic section of the narrative of
chap. 2, that connection will be affirmed in chaps. 3—4 and 18."49
The prayers of the Israelites in their bondage touched God's heart, and He began anew to
act for them (cf. 3:7-9). This is another of the many references in Scripture that indicate
that prayer affects some of God's actions. Remembering His covenant with the patriarchs,
God acted for the Israelites by commissioning Moses.

49Durham, p. 22.
God graciously and sovereignly used Moses' sin (evidently manslaughter, v. 12) to bring
ultimate blessing for His chosen people (cf. Rom. 5:20). This is important to observe as
we seek to understand God's ways.
6. Moses' call 3:1—4:18

3:1-12 Horeb is another name for Sinai (v. 1). It probably indicates a range of
mountains rather than a particular mountain peak. The writer called it "the
mountain of God" because it was the place where God later gave the
Mosaic Law to Israel. The traditional site of Mt. Sinai and the Horeb range
is in the southern Sinai Peninsula. However some Scripture references cast
this location into question (cf. Deut. 33:2; Gal. 4:25). These references
suggest that the site may have been somewhere on the east side of the Gulf
of Aqabah.50
Here the Angel of the Lord is clearly God (Yahweh, v. 2; cf. vv. 4, 6, 7).
He was not an angelic messenger but God Himself.
A burning thorn-bush was and is not uncommon in the Sinai desert.51

These bushes sometimes burst into flame spontaneously. This bush was
unusual, however, because even though it burned it did not burn up (v. 3).
The monastery of St. Catherine is supposed to be on the exact site of the
burning bush, according to ancient tradition.52
Jewish and Christian interpreters have long seen the bush in this incident
as a symbol of the nation of Israel ignoble in relation to other nations (cf.
Judg. 9:15). The fire probably symbolized the affliction of Egyptian
bondage (cf. Deut. 4:20). The Israelites suffered as a result of this
hostility, but God did not allow them to suffer extinction as a people from
it. Because Israel has frequently been in the furnace of affliction
throughout history, though not consumed, Jews have identified the
burning bush as a symbol of their race. This symbol often appears on the
walls of synagogues or in other prominent places not only in modern Israel
but also in settlements of Jews around the world. The fire also probably
symbolized the presence of God dwelling among His people (cf. Gen.
15:17; Exod. 19:18; 40:38). God was with His people in their affliction
(cf. Deut. 31:6; Josh. 1:5; Dan. 3:25; Heb. 13:5).
This was the first time God had revealed Himself to Moses, or anyone else
as far as Scripture records, for over 430 years (v. 4). Later in history God
broke another 400-year long period of prophetic silence when John the
Baptist and Jesus appeared to lead an even more significant exodus.
50However, see Gordon Franz, "Mt. Sinai Is Not Jebel El-Lawz in Saudi Arabia," a paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, 15 November 2001, Colorado Springs, Colo.
51Cassuto, p. 31.
52See Philip C. Johnson, "Exodus," in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 54.
The custom of removing one's shoes out of respect is very old (v. 5). It
was common at this time in the ancient world and is still common today.53
For example, when one enters a Moslem mosque he must remove his
shoes.
"God begins his discourse with Moses by warning him not

to come near to him because he is holy (v. 5). As we will
later see, the idea of God's holiness is a central theme in the
remainder of the book. Indeed, the whole structure of
Israel's worship of God at the tabernacle is based on a view
of God as the absolutely Holy One who has come to dwell
in their midst. We should not lose sight of the fact,
however, that at the same time that God warns Moses to
stand at a distance, he also speaks to him 'face to face' (cf.
Nu 12:8). The fact that God is a holy God should not be
understood to mean that he is an impersonal force—God is
holy yet intensely personal. This is a central theme in the
narratives of the Sinai covenant that follow."54
God proceeded to explain the reason for His revelation (vv. 7-10). The
suffering of His people had touched His heart. He had heard their cries and
seen their affliction. Now He purposed to deliver them. The compassion of
God stands out in these verses.
"The anthropomorphisms (i.e., the descriptions of God's

actions and attributes in words usually associated with
mankind) in vv. 7-8 of God's 'seeing,' 'hearing,' 'knowing'
(= 'be concerned about'), and 'coming down' became
graphic ways to describe divine realities for which no
description existed except for partially analogous situations
in the human realm. But these do not imply that God has
corporeal and spatial limitations; rather, he is a living
person who can and does follow the stream of human
events and who can and does at times directly intervene in
human affairs."55
"Is there no discrepancy between these two announcements

["I have come down to deliver," v. 8, and "I will send you,"
v. 10]? If God has Himself come down to do the work of
redemption, what need of Moses? Would not a word from
those almighty lips be enough? Why summon a shepherd, a
lonely and unbefriended man, a man who has already failed
once, and from whom the passing years have stolen his
53Keiland Delitzsch, 1:437-40.

54Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 245.
55Kaiser, p. 316.
manhood's prime, to work out with painful elaboration, and

through a series of bewildering disappointments, the
purposed emancipation? But this is not an isolated case.
Throughout the entire scheme of Divine government, we
meet with the principle of mediation. God ever speaks to
men, and works for them, through the instrumentality of
men. Chosen agents are called into the inner circle, to catch
the Divine thought and mirror the Divine character, and
then sent back to their fellows, to cause them to partake."56
The description of Canaan as a land "flowing with milk and honey" (vv. 8,
17) is a common biblical one. It pictures an abundance of grass, fruit trees,
and flowers where cows, goats, and bees thrive and where the best drink
and food abound. The operative word in the description is "flowing." This
is a picture of a land in contrast to Egypt, where sedentary farming was
common. In Canaan the Israelites would experience a different form of
life, namely, a pastoral lifestyle. Canaan depended on rainfall whereas
Egypt did not; it depended on the Nile River.57
"This formula was at first coined by the nomadic shepherds

to denote a land blessed with pastures for cattle producing
milk and with trees whose boughs afforded man, without
the necessity for hard toil, food as nourishing and as sweet
as bees' honey. In the course of time the signification of the
phrase was extended to include also land that yielded rich
harvests as a result of human labour."58
Often Moses listed seven tribes as possessing Canaan (e.g., Deut. 7:1), but
he also named six (v. 8), 10 (Gen. 15:19-21), and 12 (Gen. 10:15-18) as
the inhabitants in various Scripture passages.
The Pharaoh to whom Moses referred here (v. 10) was very likely
Amenhotep II who succeeded Thutmose III and ruled from 1450 to 1425
B.C. He ruled during the very zenith of Egypt's power, prestige, and glory
as a world government.
Moses had become genuinely humble during his years as a mere shepherd
in Midian (v. 11). Earlier an Israelite had asked Moses, "Who made you a
prince or a judge over us?" (2:14). Now Moses asked the same thing of
God: "Who am I that I should . . . bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?"
"Some time before he had offered himself of his own

accord as a deliverer and judge; but now he had learned
56Meyer, p. 43.
57Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, p. 49.
58Cassuto, p. 34.
humility in the school of Midian, and was filled in

consequence with distrust of his own power and fitness.
The son of Pharaoh's daughter had become a shepherd, and
felt himself too weak to go to Pharaoh."59
"In these verses [11-12], the presentation of the

tetragrammaton is only introduced. Moses objected, . . .
'Who am I, . . . that I . . . that I . . . ?' and God answers, . . .
'the point is I AM with you.' Who Moses is is not the
question; it is rather, who is with Moses?"60
"As long as a man holds that he is easily able to do some

great deed of heroism and faith, he is probably incompetent
for it, but when he protests his inability, and puts away the
earliest proposals, though made by the Almighty Himself,
he gives the first unmistakable sign that he has been rightly
designated."61
God gave Moses a sign to inspire his courage and confidence that God
would make his mission a success (v. 12; cf. Gen. 37:5-11). This sign was
evidently the burning bush. God also gave Moses a promise that he would
return with the Israelites to the very mountain where he stood then. This
promise required faith on Moses' part, but it was also an encouragement to
him. As surely as God had revealed Himself to Moses there once, He
promised to bring Moses back to Horeb to worship Him a second time
with the Israelites. The punctuation in the NASB may be misleading.
". . . the experience of Moses in 3:1-12 is an exact

foreshadowing of the experience of Israel, first in Egypt,
then in the deprivation of the wilderness, and finally at
Sinai."62
3:13-22 Moses' fear that the Israelite elders would not accept him is
understandable (v. 13). God had not revealed Himself to His people for
over 400 years. When Moses asked how he should answer the Israelites'
question, "What is His name?" he was asking how he could demonstrate to
them that their God had sent him.
"According to the conception prevailing in the ancient East,

the designation of an entity was to be equated, as it were,
59Keil and Delitzsch, 1:440-41. See Frederick Holmgren, "Before the temple, the thornbush: an exposition
of Exodus 2:11—3:12," The Reformed Journal 33:3 (March 1983):9-11; and Robert J. Voss, "Who Am I
That I Should Go? Exodus 3:11 (Exod. 2:25—4:18)," Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 80:4 (Fall 1983):243-
47.
60Durham, p. 33.
61Meyer, p. 45.
62Durham, p. 30.
with its existence: whatever is without an appellation does

not exist, but whatever has a denomination has
existence."63
"The question contains both a request for information and

an explanation of its significance. There are two aspects of
the one question. Clearly the people want to know more
about God's intention. By requesting his name, they seek to
learn his new relationship to them. Formerly he related to
them as the God of the Fathers. What will he be to Israel
now?"64
"What Moses asks, then, has to do with whether God can

accomplish what he is promising. What is there in his
reputation (see Num 6:27; Deut 12:5, 11; 16:2-6; Pss 8:1,
74:7; Amos 5:8, 9:5-6; Jer 33:2) that lends credibility to the
claim in his call? How, suddenly, can he be expected to
deal with a host of powerful Egyptian deities against
whom, across so many years, he has apparently won no
victory for his people?"65
God's name expressed His nature and actions (vv. 14-15). The Israelites
would ask for proof that the God of their fathers was with Moses. God
explained the name by which He made Himself known to Abraham (Gen.
15:7).
"The repetition of the same word [I am] suggests the idea

of uninterrupted continuance and boundless duration."66
Yet it means more than this.
"To the Hebrew 'to be' does not just mean to exist as all
other beings and things do as well—but to be active, to
express oneself in active being, 'The God who acts.' 'I am
what in creative activity and everywhere I turn out to be,' or
'I am (the God) that really acts.'"67
"I am that I am" means "God will reveal Himself in His

actions through history."68
63Cassuto, pp. 36-37.

64Childs,p. 75.
65Durham, p. 38.
66Keil and Delitzsch, 1:442-43.
67Sigmund Mowinckel, "The Name of the God of Moses," Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):127.
68Charles Gianotti, "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-
March 1985):45.
Other translations are, "I will be what I will be," "I am the existing One,"
and "I cause to be what comes to pass."69 One writer paraphrased God's
answer, "It is I who am with you."70 In other words, the one who had
promised to be with the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had
sent Moses to them.
"The answer Moses receives is not, by any stretch of the

imagination, a name. It is an assertion of authority, a
confession of an essential reality, and thus an entirely
appropriate response to the question Moses poses."71
Moses had asked, "Who am I?" implying his complete inadequacy for his
calling. God replied, "I am who I am!" implying His complete adequacy.
The issue was not who Moses was but who God is. I believe God meant, I
am the God of your forefathers who proved myself long ago as completely
adequate for all their needs, so it really doesn't matter who you are, Moses.
Moses would learn the complete adequacy of God himself in the events
that followed. Later, Pharaoh would say, "Who is the LORD?" (5:2), and
God's response was, "I am the LORD!" (6:2, 6, 8). Pharaoh, too, then
learned God's complete adequacy. The real issue, then, was, and is, who
God is.
This is the first reference to the elders of Israel (v. 16).72 The elders were
the leaders of the various groups of Israelites.
God told Moses to request Pharaoh's permission for the Israelites to leave
Egypt (v. 18).
"The sequel shows that there was no element of deceit in

the request for 'a three days' journey into the wilderness,'
i.e., right out of contact with the Egyptian frontier guards.
Pharaoh knew perfectly well that this implied no return;
indeed, since Israel was a tolerated alien people, he would
have no claim on their return, once they had left his
territory."73
"Moses' demand for complete freedom, though couched in

polite words, is there from the start."74
69Johnson, pp. 54-55.

70Cassuto, p. 38.
71Durham, p. 38.
72See Leslie Hoppe, "Elders and Deuteronomy," Eglise et Theologie 14 (1983):259-72.
73H. L. Ellison, Exodus, p. 22.
74R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentery, p. 72.
The signs God proceeded to give Moses would demonstrate to the

Israelites that their God was again actively working for them (v. 20; cf.
4:2-9). God told Moses that the Israelites would believe him (v. 18).
Probably there were several reasons the Israelites were to ask their
Egyptian neighbors for jewelry and clothing (v. 22). By doing so, they
would humiliate the Egyptians further. They would also obtain articles
needed for the wilderness march and the construction of the tabernacle.
Moreover they would receive partial payment for the labor the Egyptians
had stolen from them during their years of slavery (cf. Deut. 15:12-15).
The writer stated God's sovereignty over Pharaoh in verses 14-22. God
demonstrated it in the plagues that followed (chs. 5—11).75
"With the name 'Yahweh' revealed and explained and with

the proof of this explanation illustrated, at least in prospect,
Moses can have no further question about God's authority.
The narrative deals next with Moses' own authority, and
how that is to be made clear."76
4:1-9 God gave Moses three miracles to convince the Israelites that the God of
their fathers had appeared to him. They also served to bolster Moses' faith.
Moses had left Egypt and the Israelites with a clouded reputation under the
sentence of death, and he had been away for a long time. He needed to
prove to his brethren that they could trust and believe him. Not only were
these miracles strong proofs of God's power, but they appear to have had
special significance for the Israelites as well (cf. v. 8).77
God probably intended the first miracle, of the staff and serpent (vv. 2-5),
to assure Moses and the Israelites that He was placing the satanic power of
Egypt under his authoritative control. This was the power before which
Moses had previously fled. Moses' shepherd staff became a symbol of
authority in his hand, a virtual scepter. The serpent represented the deadly
power of Egypt that sought to kill the Israelites, and Moses in particular.
The Pharaohs wore a metal cobra around their heads. It was a common
symbol of the nation of Egypt. However the serpent also stood for the
great enemy of man behind that power, Satan, who had been the foe of the
seed of the woman since the Fall (Gen. 3:15). Moses' ability to turn the
serpent into his rod by seizing its tail would have encouraged the
Israelites. They should have believed that God had enabled him to
overcome the cunning and might of Egypt and to exercise authority over
its fearful power. This was a sign that God would bless Moses' leadership.
75See ibid., pp. 19-40, for an exposition of the character of God as revealed in Exodus.
76Durham, p. 41.
77See Johnson, p. 55; et al.
The second miracle, of the leprous hand (vv. 6-7), evidently assured
Moses that God would bring him and the Israelites out of their defiling
environment and heal them. But first He would punish the Egyptians with
crippling afflictions. Presently the Israelites were unclean because of their
confinement in wicked Egypt. Moses' hand was the instrument of his
strength. As such it was a good symbol of Moses, himself the instrument
of God's strength in delivering the Israelites, and Israel, God's instrument
for blessing the world.78 Moses' hand would also have suggested to
Pharaoh that Yahweh could afflict or deliver through His representative at
will. The wholeness of Moses' hand may have attested to God's delegation
of divine power to him.
The third miracle, of the water turned into blood (v. 9), provided assurance
that God would humiliate the Egyptians by spoiling what they regarded as
a divine source of life. The Egyptians identified the Nile with the Egyptian
god Osiris and credited it with all good and prosperity in their national
life. Blood was and is a symbol of life poured out in death (cf. Lev.
17:11). Moses possessed the power to change the life-giving water of the
Nile into blood. The Israelites would have concluded that he also had
power to destroy the gods of Egypt and punish the land with death (cf.
7:14-24).
"Like Abel's blood that cried out from the ground, so would
the infants' whose lives had been demanded by Pharaoh
(1:22)."79
Each of these signs attested Yahweh's creative power. Normally at least

two witnesses were necessary to establish credibility under the Mosaic
Law (Deut. 19:15; et al.). A third witness further strengthened the veracity
of the testimony. Here God gave Moses three witnesses to confirm His
prophet's divine calling and enablement. God entrusted Moses with His
powerful word and endowed him with His mighty power. He was the first
prophet with the power to perform miracles.
4:10-17 Rather than inspiring confidence in Moses, God's commission frightened

him (vv. 10-12). Moses' claim to be slow of speech (not handicapped, but
lacking in eloquence) was a thinly veiled excuse by which Moses hoped to
escape his calling. Stephen said Moses was eloquent (Acts 7:22).
Apparently Moses felt he did not have sufficient oratorical ability to
persuade the Israelite elders or Pharaoh. God assured Moses that He would
enable Him to communicate effectively. Again God reminded Moses that
He was the creator.
78For an explanation of the Septuagint's omission of "leprous" from verse 6, see C. Houtman, "A Note on
the LXX Version of Exodus 4, 6," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97:2 (1983):253-54.
79Kaiser, p. 326.
"This claim of inadequacy is a recurring one in OT

passages having to do with God's call and commission (cf.,
e.g., Judg 6:14-15; 1 Sam 10:20-24; 1 Kgs 3:5-9; Isa 6:5-8;
Jer 1:4-10; see also Habel . . .80 Whatever its connection to
prophetic and royal traditions of the word and the
messenger, its more important rootage is in the OT pattern
of the weak become strong, the least become great, the
mean become mighty, the last become first (cf., e.g, Judg
6:11-24; 1 Sam 16:1-13; 17:19-54; Amos 7:14-15; Isa 6:1-
13; Jer 1:4-19; and even Isa 52:13-53:12). This pattern is a
metaphor of theological assertion in the Bible, and
everywhere it occurs, its fundamental message is the same:
God's word, God's rule, God's teaching, God's deliverance
come not from man, no matter who that man may be, but
from God. Even the election of Israel makes this point.
Indeed that election is probably the most convincing of all
the occurrences of the pattern."81
"Cherish the lowliest thought you choose of yourself, but

unite it with the loftiest conception of God's All-
Sufficiency. Self-depreciation may lead to the marring of a
useful life. We must think soberly of ourselves, not too
lowly, as not too extravagantly. The one talent must not be
buried in the earth."82
Unable to excuse himself, Moses finally admitted that he did not want to
obey God (vv. 13-16). God became angry with Moses because he refused
to obey. However, the sovereign Lord would not let His reluctant servant
go (cf. Jonah). Instead He provided a mouthpiece for Moses in his older
brother by three years, Aaron (cf. 7:7). This act was both an aid to Moses
and a discipline for his disobedience. On the one hand Aaron was an
encouragement to Moses, but on the other he proved to be a source of
frustration as a mediator (e.g., ch. 32).
"The mouth of Moses may well be heavy and clumsy, slow

and halting in speech. It would not matter if it were dumb
altogether, and Aaron's mouth, as well. Yahweh will be
there, and Yahweh will take responsibility for both the
message and the messengers. The staff in the hands of
Moses and Aaron is a symbol of this powerful Presence."83
80N. Habel, "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 77 (1965):316-23.
81Durham, p. 49.
82Meyer, p. 71.
83Durham, p. 51.
As time passed, Moses grew more confident and communicative and

increasingly took his proper place as Israel's leader.
4:18 Moses' pessimism concerning the welfare of the Israelites comes out in his
request that Jethro (Reuel of 2:18; cf. 3:1) let him return to Egypt. Moses
apparently concluded, even after his experience at the burning bush, that
there was no hope for the Israelites.
This section makes it possible for us to gain great insight into Moses' feelings about
God's promises to his forefathers and about his own life. Moses had become thoroughly
disillusioned. He regarded himself as a failure, the objects of his ministry as hopeless,
and God as unfaithful, uncaring, and unable to deliver His people. He had learned his
own inability to deliver Israel, but he did not yet believe in God's ability to do so. Even
the miraculous revelation of God at the burning bush and the miracles that God enabled
Moses to perform did not convince him of God's purpose and power.
One supernatural revelation, even one involving miracles, does not usually change
convictions that a person has built up over years of experience. We not only need to
believe in our own inability to produce supernatural change, as Moses did, but we also
need to believe in God's ability to produce it. Moses had not yet learned the second
lesson, which God proceeded to teach him.
7. Moses' return to Egypt 4:19-31

4:19-23 Moses did not return immediately to Egypt when he arrived back in
Midian following his encounter with God at Horeb (v. 19). God spoke to
him again in Midian and sent him back to Egypt assuring His servant that
everyone who had sought his life earlier had died. Compare Abram's
stalling in Haran until God again urged him to press on to the unknown
Promised Land.
Verse 20 describes what Moses did after God's full revelation to him in
Midian that continues in verses 21-23. In chronological order verse 20
follows verse 23.
God gave Moses a preview of all that would take place in his dealings
with Pharaoh (vv. 21-23). When God said He would harden Pharaoh's
heart (v. 21), He was not saying that Pharaoh would be unable to choose
whether he would release the Israelites. God made Pharaoh's heart
progressively harder as the king chose to disobey God's will (cf. Lev.
26:23-24).
"The hardening of Pharaoh is ascribed to God, not only in

the passages just quoted [14:4, 17; 7:3; and 10:1], but also
in 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:8; that is to say, ten times in
all; and that not merely as foreknown by Jehovah, but as
caused and effected by Him. In the last five passages it is
invariably stated that 'Jehovah hardened . . . Pharaoh's
heart.' But it is also stated just as often, viz. ten times, that
Pharaoh hardened his own heart, or made it heavy or firm;
e.g., in 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:35; . . . 7:14; . . . 9:7; . . . 8:11, 28;
9:34; . . . 13:15. . . .
"According to this, the hardening of Pharaoh was quite as
much his own act as the decree of God. But if, in order to
determine the precise relation of the divine to the human
causality, we look more carefully at the two classes of
expressions, we shall find that not only in connection with
the first sign, by which Moses and Aaron were to show
their credentials as the messengers of Jehovah, sent with
the demand that he would let the people of Israel go (7:13-
14), but after the first five penal miracles, the hardening is
invariably represented as his own. . . . It is not till after the
sixth plague that it is stated that Jehovah made the heart of
Pharaoh firm (9:12). . . . Looked at from this side, the
hardening was a fruit of sin, a consequence of self-will,
high-mindedness, and pride which flowed from sin, and a
continuous and ever increasing abuse of that freedom of the
will which is innate in man, and which involves the
possibility of obstinate resistance to the word and
chastisement of God even until death. . . .
". . . God not only permits a man to harden himself; He also
produced obduracy, and suspends this sentence over the
impenitent. Not as though God took pleasure in the death of
the wicked! No; God desires that the wicked should repent
of his evil way and live (Ezek. 33:11); and He desires this
most earnestly, for 'He will have all men to be saved and to
come unto the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim. 2:4; cf. 2
Pet. 3:9). As God causes His earthly sun to rise upon the
evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the
unjust (Matt. 5:45), so He causes His sun of grace to shine
upon all sinners, to lead them to life and salvation.
"'The sun, by the force of its heat, moistens the wax
and dries the clay, softening the one and hardening
the other; and as this produces opposite effects by
the same power, so, through the long-suffering of
God, which reaches to all, some receive good and
others evil, some are softened and others hardened'
(Theodoret).
"It is the curse of sin, that it renders the hard heart harder,
and less susceptible to the gracious manifestations of divine
love, long-suffering, and patience. In this twofold manner
God produces hardness, not only permissive but effective;
i.e., not only by giving time and space for the manifestation
of human opposition, even to the utmost limits of creaturely
freedom, but still more by those continued manifestations
of His will which drive the hard heart to such utter
obduracy that it is no longer capable of returning, and so
giving over the hardened sinner to the judgment of
damnation. This is what we find in the case of Pharaoh."84
See Romans 1:24-32 for the New Testament expression of this truth. Even
though God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart was only the complement of
Pharaoh's hardening his own heart, God revealed only the former action in
verse 21. God's purpose in this revelation was to prepare Moses for the
opposition he would face. He also intended to strengthen his faith by
obviating any questions that might arise in Moses' mind concerning God's
omniscience as his conflict with Pharaoh intensified.85
"Egyptians believed that when a person died his heart was

weighed in the hall of judgment. If one's heart was 'heavy'
with sin, that person was judged. A stone beetle scarab was
placed on the heart of the deceased person to suppress his
natural tendency to confess sin which would subject
himself to judgment. This 'hardening of the heart' by the
scarab would result in salvation for the deceased.
"However, God reversed this process in Pharaoh's case.

Instead of his heart being suppressed so that he was silent
about his sin and thus delivered, his heart became
hardened, he confessed his sin (Ex. 9:27, 34; 10:16-17),
and his sinfully heavy heart resulted in judgment. For the
Egyptians 'hardening of the heart' resulted in silence
(absence of confession of sin) and therefore salvation. But
God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart resulted in
acknowledgment of sin and in judgment."86
The real question that God's dealings with Pharaoh raises is, Does man
have a free will? Man has limited freedom, not absolute freedom. We have
many examples of this fact in analogous relationships. A child has limited
freedom under his or her parent. An adult has limited freedom under his or
84Keil and Delitzsch, 1:453-456. Johnson, p. 56; Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 255;
Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, p. 23; Robert B. Chisholm, "Divine Hardening in the Old Testament,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):411, 429; and Dorian G. Coover Cox, "The
Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart in Its Literary and Cultural Contexts," Bibliotheca Sacra 163:651 (July-
September 2006):292-311, took essentially the same position.
85F. E. Deist, "Who is to blame: the Pharaoh, Yahweh or circumstance? On human responsibility, and
divine ordinance in Exodus 1—14," OTWSA 29(1986):91-110, argued that documents J, D, and P each give
a different answer to the question of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
86Hannah, pp. 114-15.
her human government. Likewise individuals have limited freedom under

divine government. God is sovereign, but we are responsible for the
decisions God allows us to make (cf. John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47;
20:31; Rom. 9:14-21; Jer. 18:1-6).87
"Childs suggests that the matter of causality in the heart-

hardening is a side-track; that those critics, for example,
who have seen here a theological dimension of
predestination and freewill, have been wrong. I would say,
No, they have been right (at least in principle) to sense such
a dimension, but wrong to see the question of divine
determination in human affairs arising only in connection
with Pharaoh's heart-hardening. For the whole story may be
seen in these terms—Moses and the people, as well as
Pharaoh, exist and act within a framework of divine
'causality.' With them, too, the question arises, Are they
independent agents? Are they manipulated by God? (Have
they freewill? Are they 'pre-destined?') The story is about
freedom; but freedom turns out to involve varieties of
servitude.
"Thus Isbell's observation bears repeating: the story is

above all one about masters, especially God. No one in the
story entirely escapes God's control or its repercussions,
whether directly or indirectly. Moses who sits removed in
Midian finds himself forced by Yahweh into a direct
servitude but is nevertheless allowed to develop a measure
of freedom. Pharaoh (Egypt) exalts his own mastery and is
cast into a total and mortal servitude. The people of Egypt
and Israel are buffeted this way and that in varying indirect
roles of servitude. . . .
"God himself is depicted as risking insecurity, because that

is the price of allowing his servants a dimension of
freedom. An exodus story that saw no murmuring, no
rebellion (or potential for rebellion) by Moses and by
Israel, would indeed be a fairy tale, a piece of soft romance.
But to talk of God and 'insecurity' in the same breath is also
to see that the gift of human 'freedom' (to some if not to
others) itself creates external pressures on God which in
turn circumscribe his own action. Egypt/Pharaoh must be
made an example of, spectacularly, so that Israel, the whole
world, may freely come to recognize that Yahweh is indeed
master, one who remembers his obligations as well as one
who demands 'service' (labour!). In short, in his relations
87See C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 52-53.

with humankind, God's freedom is circumscribed by

humankind just as the freedom of humankind is
circumscribed by God."88
Verses 22-23 summarize Moses' future messages to Pharaoh on several
different occasions.
Israel was God's first-born son in the sense that it was the nation among all
others on which God had chosen to place His special blessing. It was first
in rank and preeminence by virtue of God's sovereign choice to bless
Abraham's seed.
The essence of the conflict between Pharaoh and Yahweh was the issue of
sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to supreme power and authority.
Regarding God, it refers to the fact that He has supreme power and
authority, more than any other entity. Sovereignty does not specify how
one exercises supreme power and authority. Specifically, it does not mean
that God exercises His sovereignty by controlling everything that happens
directly. Scripture reveals that this is not how He exercises His
sovereignty. Rather He allows people some freedom yet maintains
supreme power and authority.
Were Egypt's gods or Israel's God sovereign? This issue stands out clearly
in the following verses.
"The Egyptian state was not a man-made alternative to
other forms of political organization [from the Egyptian
point of view]. It was god-given, established when the
world was created; and it continued to form part of the
universal order. In the person of Pharaoh a superhuman
being had taken charge of the affairs of man. . . . The
monarch then was as old as the world, for the creator
himself had assumed kingly office on the day of creation.
Pharaoh was his descendant and his successor."89
Pharaoh would not release Yahweh's metaphorical son, Israel. Therefore
Yahweh would take Pharaoh's metaphorical son, namely, the Egyptians as
a people, and his physical son, thus proving His sovereignty.
4:24-26 This brief account raises several questions.
88David Gunn, "The 'Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart': Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14," Art
and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, pp. 88-89. For a more strongly Calvinistic explanation of the
hardening of Pharaoh's heart, see G. K. Beale, "An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the
Hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9," Trinity Journal 5NS:2 (Autumn 1984):129-
54. For a helpful discussion of several ways of explaining God's freedom and our freedom, see Axel D.
Steuer, "The Freedom of God and Human Freedom," Scottish Journal of Theology 36:2:163-180.
89Henri Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion, p. 30.
Evidently God afflicted Moses because Moses had not been obedient to
God. He failed to circumcise at least one of his two sons (18:3-4). The
Egyptians practiced partial circumcision on adults.90 God's sentence for
this sin of omission was death ("cut off from his people," cf. Gen. 17:14).
God was ready to carry out this sentence on Moses for his failure (cf. 1
John 5:16). In doing this God was making Moses face his own incomplete
obedience that reflected his lack of faith in God. God afflicted Moses, but
whether He did so naturally or supernaturally is unclear and unimportant.
In this incident God was bringing Moses to the place he brought Jacob
when He wrestled with him at the Jabbok (Gen. 32). He was getting him to
acknowledge His sovereignty.91
Zipporah ("little bird") performed the operation at her husband's
insistence. It is obvious that she did not approve of it. Most scholars
believe that Zipporah cut off the foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet. One
writer believed that she touched Moses' genitals with her son's foreskin.92
Another argued that she threw it at the feet of the preincarnate Christ.93
Perhaps because of her resistance to do the will of God Moses sent her and
his sons back to her father at this time. Moses may have sent her back
during or before the plagues, when his life might have been in danger from
the Egyptians. We have no record of when Moses' household returned to
Midian, but we read of them rejoining Moses later at Sinai (18:2).
The "bridegroom of blood" figure (v. 26) evidently means as follows.
Apparently Zipporah regarded her act of circumcising her son as what
removed God's hand of judgment from Moses and restored him to life and
to her again. It was as though God had given Moses a second chance and
he had begun life as her husband over as a bridegroom (cf. Jonah).94 She
had accepted Yahweh's authority and demands and was now viewing
Moses in the light of God's commission. She abandoned her claim to
Moses and made him available to Yahweh's service.95 "You are a
bridegroom of blood to me," may have been an ancient marital
relationship formula recalling circumcision as a premarital rite.96
"Moses has been chosen and commissioned by God, but he
has shown himself far from enthusiastic about confronting
the Pharaoh and threatening him with the death of his son.
YHWH sets about showing Moses that although he is safe
90J.M. Sasson, "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East," Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-74.
91SeeM. J. Oosthuizen, "Some thoughts on the interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26," OTWSA 29(1986):22-28.
92Durham, p. 58.
93Ronald B. Allen, "The 'Bloody Bridegroom' in Exodus 4:24-26," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-
September 1996):259-69.
95Oosthuizen, p. 26.
96T. C. Mitchell, "The Meaning of the Noun HTN in the Old Testament," Vetus Testamentum 19
(1969):94-105, 111-12.
from other men (Ex. iv 19) he faces a much greater danger

to his life in the wrath of the God whom he is so reluctant
to serve (iv 14). Like Jacob before him, Moses must
undergo a night struggle with his mysterious God before he
can become a worthy instrument of YHWH and can enjoy a
completely satisfactory relationship with his brother. In all
this, Moses, like Jacob, is not only an historical person, but
also a paradigm. The Israelite people, the people whom
YHWH has encountered and whom he will slay with
pestilence and sword if they go not out into the wilderness
to serve him (v. 3), must ponder this story with fear and
trembling.
"If Israel is to survive the wrath of YHWH, it must, our text
implies, be by virtue of the spilling of atoning blood . . .
Gershom's blood saves Moses, just as the blood of the
Passover lamb will save the Israelites. Since for the sin of
the Pharaoh his son's blood will be shed, it is appropriate
that the blood which saves Moses should not be his own,
but that of his son. It is also fitting that this blood should be
blood shed during the rite of circumcision. Since before the
Passover lamb is eaten the participants must all be
circumcised, it is right that the neglect of Gershom's
circumcision (though this omission is not the cause of the
attack) should be repaired. The boy cannot be circumcised
by his father, who is otherwise engaged, so Zipporah takes
it upon herself, acting on behalf of her absent father, Jethro
(hence the words to Moses 'You are my son-in-law by
virtue of blood, the blood of circumcision'), to perform the
rite, thus showing herself to be a worthy member of the
elite class typified by Rahab the Canaanite harlot and Ruth
the Moabitess—the foreign woman who puts Israelites to
shame and earns the right to be held up as a model for
imitation. Why does she touch Moses' raglayim ["feet"]
with the severed foreskin? Although, as I have argued,
Moses is to be thought of as already circumcised, this
action of his wife is, I have suggested, to be construed as a
symbolic act of re-circumcision: Moses as representative of
the people as a whole is thus symbolically prepared for the
imminent Passover celebration. The vocation of the
Israelite is a matter of high moment. One's reluctance to
serve YHWH wholeheartedly has to be broken down in a
fearsome lone struggle in the darkness, and even then
before one can meet YHWH there must be a twofold
shedding of blood, the blood of circumcision and that of the
Passover lamb. Furthermore, the pride of the male Israelite
in his high vocation must needs be qualified, by reflecting
that in his mysterious strategies for the world YHWH often

employs in major roles those who are neither male nor even
Israelite."97
These few verses underscore a very important principle. Normally before
God will use a person publicly he or she must first be obedient to God at
home (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4-5).
"This story of Moses shows that God would rather have us
die than take up His work with unconsecrated hearts and
unsurrendered wills."98
4:27-31 Aaron was evidently in Egypt when God told him to meet Moses and
directed him to Horeb (v. 27). Moses was apparently on his way from
Midian back to Egypt when Aaron met him. Compare the reunion of Jacob
and Esau (Gen. 33).
The Israelites believed what Moses and Aaron told them and what their
miracles confirmed. They believed that the God of their fathers had
appeared to Moses and had sent him to lead them out of Egypt and into the
Promised Land (v. 31; cf. 3:6—4:9).
The relationship of faith and worship is clear in verse 31. Worship is an
expression of faith.
B. GOD'S DEMONSTRATIONS OF HIS SOVEREIGNTY CHS. 5—11

God permitted the conflict between Moses and Pharaoh for five reasons at least.
1. In this conflict God displayed His superior power and sovereignty over Pharaoh
and the gods of Egypt.
2. God strengthened the faith of His people so that they would trust and obey Him
and thereby realize all of His gracious purposes for them as a nation.
3. God also used these events to heighten anticipation of and appreciation for the
redemption He would provide. The Israelites would forever after look back on the
Exodus as the greatest demonstration of God's love at work for them.
4. These conflicts show how divine sovereignty works with human freedom. God
exercises His sovereignty by allowing people a measure of freedom to make
choices, for which he holds them responsible.
5. They also clarify how God hands people over to the consequences of the sins they
insist on pursuing as punishment for their sins.
97Bernard P. Robinson, "Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6," Vetus
Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):459-61.
98Meyer, p. 81.
"It is impossible to find a more exact illustration of the truth of Rom. i.

than that presented in this story of Pharaoh's conflict with Jehovah."99
1. Pharaoh's response to Moses and Aaron's initial request 5:1—6:1

5:1-9 At Moses and Aaron's first audience with Pharaoh they simply presented
God's command (v. 1).100 They did not perform miracles but asked for
permission to leave Egypt.
The Israelites could have worshipped the gods of Egypt in the land, but
they had to leave Egypt to worship a non-Egyptian God. Moses' request
was a request to exercise a basic human right, namely, freedom of
worship.
"Exodus 5:1-5 introduces another aspect of labour in
Egypt: claims for time off work, and specifically for
worship or religious holidays. On this topic, useful
background comes from the extensive, fragmentary and
often very detailed records kept for the activities of the
royal workmen (who lived at the Deir el-Medina village),
who cut the royal tombs in the Valleys of the Kings and
Queens in Western Thebes, c. 1530-1100 B.C.
"Daily notes were kept for the men's attendances at work or
of their absences from it. Sometimes reasons for absence
are given. . . . The entire workforce might be off for up to 8
or 14 days, especially if interruptions, official holidays and
'weekends' came together. In Ancient Egypt—as
elsewhere—major national festivals (usually main feasts of
chief gods) were also public holidays. Then, each main city
had its own holidays on main feasts of the principal local
god(s). Besides all this, the royal workmen at Deir el-
Medina can be seen claiming time off for all kinds of
reasons, including 'offering to his god,' '(off) for his feast';
even 'brewing for his feast' or for a specific deity. Not only
individuals but groups of men together could get time off
for such observances. And a full-scale feast could last
several days.
"What was true in Thebes or Memphis would apply equally
at Pi-Ramesse (Raamses). So, when Moses requested time
off from Pharaoh, for the Hebrews to go off and celebrate a
feast to the Lord God, it is perhaps not too surprising that
Pharaoh's reaction was almost 'not another holiday!'"101
99Ibid.,
p. 90.
100Foran introduction to Liberation Theology, see Wolf, pp. 130-31.
101Kenneth Kitchen, "Labour Conditions in the Egypt of the Exodus," Buried History (September
1984):47-48.
Pharaoh was not only the king of Egypt, but the Egyptians regarded him as
a divine person; he was a god (v. 2).102 Consequently when Moses and
Aaron asked Pharaoh to accede to the command of Yahweh, Pharaoh saw
this request as a threat to his sovereignty. He knew (i.e., had respect for)
the gods of Egypt, but he did not know (have respect for) Yahweh, the
God of his foreign slaves. If Yahweh had identified Himself with these
slaves, and if He had not already delivered them, why should Pharaoh fear
and obey Him?
"It required no ordinary daring to confront the
representative of a long line of kings who had been taught
to consider themselves as the representatives and equals of
the gods. They were accustomed to receive Divine titles
and honours, and to act as irresponsible despots. Their will
was indisputable, and all the world seemed to exist for no
other reason than [to] minister to their state."103
"These words ["Who is the LORD that I should obey His
voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD . . ."] form
the motivation for the events that follow, events designed to
demonstrate who the Lord is.
"Thus as the plague narratives begin, the purpose of the
plagues is clearly stated: 'so that the Egyptians will know
that I am the LORD' (7:5). Throughout the plague narratives
we see the Egyptians learning precisely this lesson (8:19;
9:20, 27; 10:7). As the narratives progress, the larger
purpose also emerges. The plagues which God had sent
against the Egyptians were 'to be recounted to your son and
your son's son . . . so that you may know that I am the
LORD.'"104
"The point is clear from the chapter: when the people of
God attempt to devote their full service and allegiance to
God, they encounter opposition from the world."105
In their second appeal to Pharaoh, Moses and Aaron used milder terms (v.
3). They presented themselves not as ambassadors of Yahweh but as
representatives of their brethren. They did not mention the name
"Yahweh," that was unknown to Pharaoh, or "Israel," that would have
struck him as arrogant. They did not command but requested ("Please
. . ."). Moreover they gave reasons for their request: their God had
appeared to them, and they feared His wrath if they disobeyed Him.
102See Frankfort, ch. 2: "The Egyptian State."

103Meyer, p. 88.
104Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 249-50.
105The NET Bible note on 5:1.
"Moses . . . appealed to him [Pharaoh] almost precisely as,

centuries after, Paul addressed the assembly on Mars Hill
. . . [cf. Acts 17:22-23]."106
The Egyptians regarded the sacrifices that the Israelites would offer as
unacceptable since almost all forms of life were sacred in Egypt. They
believed their gods manifested themselves through cows, goats, and many
other animals.
"The Egyptians considered sacred the lion, the ox, the ram,
the wolf, the dog, the cat, the ibis, the vulture, the falcon,
the hippopotamus, the crocodile, the cobra, the dolphin,
different varieties of fish, trees, and small animals,
including the frog, scarab, locust, and other insects. In
addition to these there were anthropomorphic gods; that is,
men in the prime of life such as Annen, Atum, or Osiris."107
"Where did Moses get the idea that they should have a
pilgrim feast and make sacrifices? God had only said they
would serve Him in that mountain. In the OT the pilgrim
feasts to the sanctuary three times a year incorporated the
ideas of serving the LORD and keeping the commands. So
the words here simply use the more general idea of
appearing before their God. And, they would go to the
desert because there was no homeland yet. Only there could
they be free."108
Pharaoh's reply to Moses and Aaron's second appeal was even harsher
than his response to their first command (v. 5; cf. v. 1). Their aggressive
approach may have been what God used to cause Pharaoh to harden his
heart initially.
5:11-21 Stubble was the part of the corn or grain stalk that remained standing after
field hands had harvested a crop (v. 12). This the Israelites chopped up
and mixed with the clay to strengthen their bricks.
"In 2:23 the cry of the people went up before God. By
contrast, here in 5:15 the cry of the people is before
Pharaoh. It is as if the author wants to show that Pharaoh
was standing in God's way and thus provides another
motivation for the plagues which follow."109
"This Pharaoh, so unreasonable with men and so stingy
with straw, is about to be shown up before Yahweh as no
more than a man of straw."110
106Meyer, p. 107.
107William Ward, The Spirit of Ancient Egypt, p. 123.
110Durham, p. 66.
The Israelites turned on Moses just as the Israelites in Jesus' day turned
against their Savior.
"The Lord God brought a vine out of Egypt, but during the
four hundred years of its sojourn there, it had undeniably
become inveterately degenerate and wild."111
5:22—6:1 Moses' prayer of inquiry and complaint reveals the immaturity of his faith
at this time. He, too, needed the demonstrations of God's power that
followed.
"By allowing us to listen to Moses' prayer to God, the

author uncovers Moses' own view of his calling. It was
God's work, and Moses was sent by God to do it."112
This section climaxes with the apparent failure of Yahweh's plan to rescue Israel. This
desperate condition provides the pessimistic backdrop for the supernatural
demonstrations of Yahweh's power that follow.
2. Moses and Aaron's equipment as God's messengers 6:2—7:7
The writer gave the credentials of God and His representatives, Moses and Aaron, in
these verses.
6:2-9 God explained to Moses that He would indeed deliver Israel out of Egypt
in spite of the discouragement that Moses had encountered so far. God
proceeded to remind Moses of His promises to the patriarchs and to reveal
more of Himself by expounding one of His names.
"During the patriarchal period the characteristic name of

God was 'God Almighty' (6:3; see, for example, Gen. 17:1),
the usual translation of the Hebrew El Shaddai, which
probably literally means 'God, the Mountain One.' That
phrase could refer to the mountains as God's symbolic
home (see Ps. 121:1), but it more likely stresses His
invincible power and might. . . .
"But during the Mosaic period the characteristic name of
God was to be 'the LORD,' the meaning of which was first
revealed to Moses himself (Exod. 3:13-15). Exodus 6:3 is
not saying that the patriarchs were totally ignorant of the
name Yahweh."113
111Meyer,p. 18.
112Sailhamer,The Pentateuch . . ., p. 250.
The occurrences of "El Shaddai" in Genesis are in 17:1; 28:3; 35:11;

43:14; 48:3; and partially in 49:3. The name occurs 30 times in Job.
Shaddai may come from the Hebrew sd ("breast") or from the Ugaritic tdy
("mountain"). In the former case it would mean "God the Nourisher," and
in the latter "God of the Mountain."114
"Thus though the name YHWH existed well before the
time of Moses, the meaning of that name was not revealed
until the time of Moses."115
"Yahweh" reveals God as "the absolute Being working with unbounded
freedom in the performance of His promises."116 It emphasizes God's
power at work for His people, as He was about to demonstrate it.
"Whatever the situation or need (in particular, the
redemption from Egypt, but also future needs), God will
'become' the solution to that need."117
In this revelation God promised to do three things for Israel.
1. He would deliver the Israelites from their Egyptian bondage (v. 6).
Moses communicated this in a threefold expression suggesting the
completeness of the deliverance.
2. He would adopt Israel as His nation (v. 7). This took place at Sinai
(19:5).
3. He would bring Israel into the Promised Land (v. 8).
Note the repetition of the phrase "I will" seven times in these verses,
emphasizing the fact that God would certainly do this for Israel. The
whole revelation occurs within the statements "I am the LORD" (vv. 2, 8)
which formalize it and further stress the certainty of these promises.
"So this passage effectively paves the way for the transition
from the simple covenant with Abraham to the complex
new (Mosaic) covenant with the people as a whole."118
"This small section of narrative also sketches out the
argument of the whole Pentateuch. God made a covenant
with the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan (Ex
6:4). He remembered his covenant when he heard the cry of
the Israelites in Egyptian bondage (v. 5). He is now going
114See Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 340.

115Gianotti, p. 39. See Johnson, p. 56; and Robert Dick Wilson, "Yahweh (Jehovah) and Exodus 6:3," in
Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 29-40.
117Gianotti, p. 46. See also the note on verse 3 in the NET Bible.
118Jonathan Magonet, "The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6:2-8," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27
(October 1983):66.
to deliver Israel from their bondage and take them to

himself as a people and be their God (v. 6). He will also
bring them into the land which he swore to give to their
fathers (v. 8). The die is cast for the remainder of the events
narrated in the Pentateuch."119
6:10-13 Moses continued to claim lack of persuasive skill in speech (v. 12; cf. v.
30). He failed to grasp the full significance of what God had just revealed
to him. Jesus' disciples, and we, had and have the same problem. It was
God, not Moses, who would bring the people out of Egypt.
"Seven distinct objections were raised by Moses as reasons

why he should not undertake the arduous task to which he
was called. They have been thus epitomised [sic]: Lack of
fitness, 'who am I, that I should go?' (iii. 11); lack of words,
'what shall I say?' (iii. 13); lack of authority, 'they will not
believe me' (iv. 1); lack of power of speech, 'I am not
eloquent' (iv. 10); lack of special adaptation, 'Send by
whom Thou wilt send' (iv. 13); lack of success at his first
attempt, 'neither hast Thou delivered Thy people at all' (v.
23); lack of acceptance, 'the children of Israel have not
hearkened unto me' (vi. 12)."120
6:14-30 The selective genealogy (cf. Num. 3:27-28) of Moses and Aaron accredits
these men as God's divinely appointed messengers (prophets) to the
Israelites.
MOSES' FAMILY TREE (EXOD. 6:14-27)
Reuben Simeon Levi Judah
Gershon Kohath Marari
Libni Shimei Amram Izhar Hebron Uzziel Mahli Mushi
Aaron Moses Korah Nephez Zichri Michael Elzaphan Sithri
Nadab Abihu Eleazar Ithamar Assir Elkanah Abiasaph
Phinehas

120Meyer, p. 62.
7:1-7 Moses was "as God" to Pharaoh in that he was the person who revealed
God's will (v. 1). Pharaoh was to be the executor of that will. Aaron would
be Moses' prophet as he stood between Moses and Pharaoh and
communicated Moses and God's will to the king. Verse 1 helps us identify
the essential meaning of the Hebrew word nabhi (prophet; cf. 4:10-16;
Deut. 18:15-22; Isa. 6:9; Jer. 1:7; Ezek. 2:3-4; Amos 7:12-16). This word
occurs almost 300 times in the Old Testament and "in its fullest
significance meant 'to speak fervently for God'"121
"The pith of Hebrew prophecy is not prediction or social

reform but the declaration of divine will"122
God referred to the miracles Moses would do as signs (i.e., miracles with
special significance) and wonders (miracles producing wonder or awe in
those who witnessed them, v. 3).123 The text usually calls them "plagues,"
but clearly they were "signs," miracles that signified God's sovereignty.
The ultimate purpose of God's actions was His own glory (v. 5). The glory
of God was at stake. The Egyptians would acknowledge God's faithfulness
and sovereign power in delivering the Israelites from their bondage and
fulfilling their holy calling. God's intention was to bless the Egyptians
through Israel (Gen. 12:3), but Pharaoh would make that impossible by his
stubborn refusal to honor God. Nevertheless the Egyptians would
acknowledge Yahweh's sovereignty.
The writer included the ages of Moses and Aaron (80 and 83 respectively)
as part of God's formal certification of His messengers (v. 7).124
"It is a common feature of biblical narratives for the age of

their heroes to be stated at the time when some momentous
event befalls them . . ."125
"D. L. Moody wittily said that Moses spent forty years in

Pharaoh's court thinking he was somebody; forty years in
the desert learning he was nobody; and forty years showing
what God can do with somebody who found out he was
nobody."126
121Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel, p. 63. (

122Norman Gottwald, A Light to the Nations, p. 277. See also Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets,
ch. III: "The Terminology of Prophetism," for discussion of how the Old Testament used the Hebrew words
for prophets.
123See Ken L. Sarles, "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement," Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577
(January-March 1988):57-82.
124See G. Herbert Livingston, "A Case Study of the Call of Moses," Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (Fall
1987):89-113.
126Bernard Ramm, His Way Out, p. 54.
3. The attestation of Moses and Aaron's divine mission 7:8-13

Pharaoh requested that Moses and Aaron perform a miracle to prove their divine
authority since they claimed that God had sent them (vv. 9-10).
"What we refer to as the ten 'plagues' were actually judgments designed to

authenticate Moses as God's messenger and his message as God's
message. Their ultimate purpose was to reveal the greatness of the power
and authority of God to the Egyptians (7:10—12:36) in order to bring
Pharaoh and the Egyptians into subjection to God."127
The Jews preserved the names of the chief magicians even though the Old Testament did
not record them. Paul said they were Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:9). These were not
sleight-of-hand artists but wise men who were evidently members of the priestly caste
(cf. Gen. 41:8). The power of their demonic gods lay in their "secret arts" (v. 11). They
were able to do miracles in the power of Satan (1 Cor. 10:20; cf. Matt. 24:24; 2 Thess.
2:9-10; Rev. 13:13-14).128 The superiority of the Israelites' God is clear in the superiority
of Aaron's serpent over those of the Egyptian magicians (v. 12). The rod again
represented regal authority and implied that Yahweh, not Pharaoh, was sovereign (cf.
4:2-5).
There are at least three possibilities regarding the Egyptian magicians' rods becoming
snakes. The magicians may have received power to create life from Satan, with God's
premission. Second, God may have given them this power directly. Third, their rods may
have been rigid snakes that, when cast to the ground, were seen to be what they were,
serpents.
Aaron's miracle should have convinced Pharaoh of Yahweh's sovereignty, but he chose to
harden his heart in unbelief and disobedience. Consequently God sent the plagues that
followed.
"The point of this brief section is that Yahweh's proof of his powerful
Presence to the Pharaoh and thus to the Pharaoh's Egypt will be
miraculous in nature."129
4. The first three plagues 7:14—8:19

Psalm 78:43 places the scene of the plagues in northern Egypt near Zoan.
The plagues were penal; God sent them to punish Pharaoh for his refusal to obey God and
to move him to obey Yahweh. They involved natural occurrences rather than completely
unknown phenomena. At various times of the year gnats, flies, frogs, etc., were a problem
to the Egyptians. Even the pollution of the Nile, darkness, and death were common to the
Egyptians.
127J.
Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, p. 83.
128SeeMerrill Unger, Biblical Demonology, p. 139; idem, Demons in the World Today, pp. 38-39.
129Durham, p. 92.
Evidence that the plagues were truly miraculous events is as follows. Some were natural
calamities that God supernaturally intensified (frogs, insects, murrain, hail, darkness).
Moses set the time for the arrival and departure of some. Some afflicted only the
Egyptians. The severity of the plagues increased consistently. They also carried a moral
purpose (9:27; 10:16; 12:12; 14:30).130
"The plagues were a combination of natural phenomena known to both the

Egyptians and Israelites alike (due to their long sojourn in Egypt)
heightened by the addition of supernatural factors."131
God designed them to teach the Egyptians that Yahweh sovereignly controls the forces of
nature.132 The Egyptians attributed this control to their gods.
"Up to now the dominate [sic] theme has been on preparing the deliverer
for the exodus. Now, it will focus on preparing Pharaoh for it. The
theological emphasis for exposition of the entire series of plagues may be:
The sovereign Lord is fully able to deliver his people from the oppression
of the world so that they might worship and serve him alone."133
Some writers have given a possible schedule for the plagues based on the times of year
some events mentioned in the text would have normally taken place in Egypt. For
example, lice and flies normally appeared in the hottest summer months. Barley formed
into ears of grain and flax budded (9:31) in January-February. Locusts were a problem in
early spring. The Jews continued to celebrate the Passover in the spring. This schedule
suggests that the plagues began in June and ended the following April.134
"The Egyptians were just about the most polytheistic people known from
the ancient world. Even to this day we are not completely sure of the total
number of gods which they worshipped. Most lists include somewhere in
the neighborhood of eighty gods . . ."135
Many students of the plagues have noticed that they appeared in sets of three. The
accounts of the first plague in each set (the first, fourth, and seventh plagues) each
contain a purpose statement in which God explained to Moses His reason and aim for that
set of plagues (cf. 7:17; 8:22; 9:14). God had announced His overall purpose for the
plagues in 7:4-5.136 The last plague in each set of three came on Pharaoh without
130Free, p. 95.
131Ramm, p. 62.
132See R. Norman Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch, p. 72; and Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp.
252-53.
134Flinders Petrie, Egypt and Israel, pp. 35-36; and Greta Hort, "The Plagues of Egypt," Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1957):84-103; ibid., 70 (1958):48-59.
135Davis, p. 86. Cf. Frankfort, p. 4. Other studies have discovered more than 1,200 gods. See E. A. W.
Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians, pp. ix-x; and B. E. Shafer, ed., Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths,
and Personal Practice, pp. 7-87.
136Kaiser, "Exodus," pp. 348-49. Cf. C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old
Testament, pp. 74-75, 92-94.
warning, but Moses announced the others to him beforehand. The first set of three
plagues apparently affected both the Egyptians and the Israelites, whereas the others
evidently touched only the Egyptians.
The water turned to blood (the first plague) 7:14-25
The first mighty act of God serves in the narrative as a paradigm of the nine plagues that
follow. Striking the Nile with the rod suggested dominion over creation and all the gods
of Egyptian mythology. The Egyptians linked many of their gods with the life-giving
force of the Nile. The tenth plague is unique in that it is both a part of the narrative of
Exodus as a whole and is a mighty act of God in itself.137
Evidently Pharaoh had his morning devotions on the banks of the sacred Nile River.
Moses and Aaron met him there as he prepared to honor the gods of the river (v. 15).
We could perhaps interpret the statement that the water turned into blood (v. 20) in the
same way we interpret Joel's prophecy that the moon will turn into blood (Joel 2:31 cf.
Rev. 6:12). Moses may have meant that the water appeared to be blood.138 Nevertheless
something happened to the water to make the fish die. The Hebrew word translated
"blood" means blood, so a literal meaning is possible.139 Furthermore the passage in Joel
is poetry and therefore figurative, whereas the passage here in Exodus is narrative and
may be understood literally.140 Note too that this plague affected all the water in pools
and reservoirs formed by the overflowing Nile as well as the water of the Nile and its
estuaries (v. 19). Understood figuratively or literally a real miracle took place, as is clear
from the description of the effects this plague had on the Egyptians and the fish in the
Nile. The Egyptian wizards were able to duplicate this wonder, but they could not undo
its effects.
"The most that can be said for their miracle-working is that it is a copy of
what Moses and Aaron have accomplished and that it actually makes
matters worse for their master and their people."141
"It was appropriate that the first of the plagues should be directed against
the Nile River itself, the very lifeline of Egypt and the center of many of
its religious ideas. The Nile was considered sacred by the Egyptians.
Many of their gods were associated either directly or indirectly with this
river and its productivity. For example, the great Khnum was considered
the guardian of the Nile sources. Hapi was believed to be the 'spirit of the
Nile' and its 'dynamic essence.' One of the greatest gods revered in Egypt
was the god Osiris who was the god of the underworld. The Egyptians
believed that the river Nile was his bloodstream. In the light of this latter
137Durham, p. 95.
138The New Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Plagues of Egypt," by Kenneth A. Kitchen, p. 1002.
139Durham, p. 97.
141Durham, p. 98.
expression, it is appropriate indeed that the Lord should turn the Nile to
blood! It is not only said that the fish in the river died but that the 'river
stank,' and the Egyptians were not able to use the water of that river. That
statement is especially significant in the light of the expressions which
occur in the 'Hymn to the Nile': 'The bringer of food, rich in provisions,
creator of all good, lord of majesty, sweet of fragrance'.142 With this
Egyptian literature in mind, one can well imagine the horror and
frustration of the people of Egypt as they looked upon that which was
formerly beautiful only to find dead fish lining the shores and an ugly red
characterizing what had before provided life and attraction. Crocodiles
were forced to leave the Nile. One wonders what worshipers would have
thought of Hapi the god of the Nile who was sometimes manifest in the
crocodile. Pierre Montet relates the following significant observation:
"'At Sumenu (the modern Rizzeigat) in the Thebes area,
and in the central district of the Fayum, the god Sepek took
the form of a crocodile. He was worshipped in his temple
where his statue was erected, and venerated as a sacred
animal as he splashed about in his pool. A lady of high rank
would kneel down and, without the slightest trace of
disgust, would drink from the pool in which the crocodile
wallowed. Ordinary crocodiles were mummified
throughout the whole of Egypt and placed in underground
caverns, like the one called the Cavern of the Crocodiles in
middle Egypt.'143
"Surely the pollution of the Nile would have taken on religious
implications for the average Egyptian. Those who venerated Neith, the
eloquent warlike goddess who took a special interest in the lates, the
largest fish to be found in the Nile, would have had second thoughts about
the power of that goddess. Nathor was supposed to have protected the
chromis, a slightly smaller fish. Those Egyptians who depended heavily
on fish and on the Nile would indeed have found great frustration in a
plague of this nature."144
"Each year, toward the end of June, when the waters of the Nile begin to
rise, they are colored a dark red by the silt carried down from the
headwaters. This continues for three months, until the waters begin to
abate, but the water, meanwhile, is wholesome and drinkable. The miracle
of 7:17-21 involved three elements by which it differed from the
accustomed phenomenon: the water was changed by the smiting of Moses'
rod; the water became undrinkable; and the condition lasted just seven
days (v. 25)."145
142James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 272.

143PierreMontet, Eternal Egypt, p. 172.
144Davis, pp. 94-95.
145Johnson, p. 58.
The commentators have interpreted the reference to blood being throughout all Egypt "in
(vessels of) wood and in (vessels of) stone" (v. 19) in various ways. Some believe this
refers to water in exterior wooden and stone water containers. Others think it refers to
water in all kinds of vessels used for holding water. Still others believe Moses described
the water in trees and in wells. However this expression may refer to the water kept in
buildings that the Egyptians normally constructed out of wood and stone.
"In the Bible a totality is more often indicated by mentioning two
fundamental elements; see e.g., 'milk and honey' (Ex. iii 8, etc.) and 'flesh
and blood' (Matt. xvi 17)."146
This is a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part stands for the whole or the whole
represents a part. The quotation above supports the idea that God changed even the water
stored in buildings to blood.
"Each of the first nine of the mighty-act accounts may be said to have the
same fundamental point, expressed in much the same way. That point,
concisely summarized, is that Yahweh powerfully demonstrates his
Presence to a Pharaoh prevented from believing so that Israel may come to
full belief."147
Frogs (the second plague) 8:1-15
Before the second plague, Moses gave Pharaoh a warning, for the first time, and for the
first time the plague touched Pharaoh's person.
"The god Hapi controlled the alluvial deposits and the waters that made
the land fertile and guaranteed the harvest of the coming season. These
associations caused the Egyptians to deify the frog and make the
theophany of the goddess Heqt a frog. Heqt was the wife of the great god
Khnum. She was the symbol of resurrection and the emblem of fertility. It
was also believed that Heqt assisted women in childbirth. . . . The frog was
one of a number of sacred animals that might not be intentionally killed,
and even their involuntary slaughter was often punished with death."148
The goddess Heqt ". . . who is depicted in the form of a woman with a
frog's head, was held to blow the breath of life into the nostrils of the
bodies that her husband fashioned on the potter's wheel from the dust of
the earth . . . ."149
"This second plague was not completely unrelated to the first, for the Nile
and the appearance of the frogs were very much associated. The presence
of the frogs normally would have been something pleasant and desirable,
146C.Houtman, "On the Meaning of Uba'esim Uba'abanim in Exodus VII 19," Vetus Testamentum 36:3
(1968):352.
147Durham, p. 99.
148Davis, p. 100.
149Cassuto, p. 101.
but on this occasion quite the opposite was true. The frogs came out of the
rivers in great abundance and moved across the land into the houses, the
bedchambers, the beds, and even moved upon the people themselves (v.
3). One can only imagine the frustration brought by such a multiplication
of these creatures. They were probably everywhere underfoot bringing
distress to the housewives who attempted to clear the house of them only
to find that they made their way into the kneading troughs and even into
the beds. It must have been a unique experience indeed to come home
from a long day's work, slip into bed only to find that it has already been
occupied by slimy, cold frogs! Whatever popularity the goddess Heqt
must have enjoyed prior to this time would have been greatly diminished
with the multiplication of these creatures who at this point must have
tormented her devotees to no end."150
"Since the frog or toad was deified as the Egyptian goddess Heqt, who
was believed to assist women in childbirth, there may be a touch of irony
in the statement that large numbers of frogs would invade the Pharaoh's
bedroom and even jump on his bed (v. 3)."151
The Egyptian magicians were able to bring up frogs, too (v. 7), but they seem to have
lacked the ability to make them go away since Pharaoh asked Moses to get rid of them (v.
8). Satanic power does not generally work for the welfare of humanity but is basically
destructive.
To impress upon Pharaoh that a personal God was performing these miracles (v. 10)
Moses asked the king to set the time when the frogs should depart (v. 9). Yahweh was in
charge of the very territory over which Pharaoh regarded himself as sovereign.
Gnats (the third plague) 8:16-19
The Hebrew word translated "gnats" (kinnim) probably refers not to lice or fleas but to
gnats. Kaiser suggested that mosquitoes may be in view.152 The frogs had invaded the
Egyptians' homes, but the gnats afflicted their bodies.
They were ". . . a species of gnats, so small as to be hardly visible to the
eye, but with a sting which, according to Philo and Origin, causes a most
painful irritation of the skin. They even creep into the eyes and nose, and
after the harvest they rise in great swarms from the inundated rice
fields."153
"The dust . . . became gnats" (v. 17) probably means that the gnats rose from the dust,
resembled the dust in that they were so small, and were as numerous as the dust. Moses
evidently used the language of appearance (here a metaphor).
150Davis, pp. 100-101.

152Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 353.
The magicians failed to reproduce this miracle (v. 18). They had to confess that it was of
divine origin and not the result of Moses and Aaron's human ability. The "finger of God"
(v. 19) is a phrase denoting creative omnipotence in Scripture (31:18; Ps. 8:3; Luke
11:20). It is probably another synecdoche as well as an anthropomorphism (a depiction of
God in human terms). Here the finger of God, a part, represents the totality, namely, all
His power. See 1 Samuel 6:9 and Psalm 109:27 where the "hand of God" also pictures
His power.
"The new element introduced in the account of the third of the mighty acts
is the realization by Pharaoh's learned men that God or a god is in the
midst of what is happening in Egypt."154
"At this point in the narrative we, the readers, see that the Egyptian
magicians were using tricks in their earlier signs. Their confession plays
an important role in uncovering the writer's real purpose in recounting
these events."155
The magicians gave credit to "God" (Elohim), not Yahweh. They did not ascribe this
miracle to the God of the Israelites but were only willing to say it had some supernatural
origin.
"It is not clear against what specific deities this particular plague was
directed. It is entirely possible, however, that the plague was designed to
humiliate the official priesthood in the land, for it will be noted in verse 17
that these creatures irritated both man and beast, and this included 'all the
land of Egypt.' The priests in Egypt were noted for their physical purity.
Daily rites were performed by a group of priests known as the Uab or
'pure ones.' Their purity was basically physical rather than spiritual. They
were circumcised, shaved the hair from their heads and bodies, washed
frequently, and were dressed in beautiful linen robes.156 In the light of this
it would seem rather doubtful that the priesthood in Egypt could function
very effectively having been polluted by the presence of these insects.
They, like their worshipers, were inflicted with the pestilence of this
occasion. Their prayers were made ineffective by their own personal
impurity with the presence of gnats on their bodies.
"The priests in Egypt were a group of people to be reckoned with not only
religiously but economically and politically. They controlled to a large
degree, the minds and hearts of the people."157
The Egyptian priests wore animal masks representing various gods to help the people
understand the god the mask portrayed and his activities.158 This practice continues in
some pagan religions even today.
154Durham, p. 109.
156Montet, p. 177.
157Davis, p. 103.
158Arelene Wolinski, "Egyptian Masks: the Priest and His Role," Archaeology 40:1 (January-February
1987):22-29.
5. The fourth, fifth, and sixth plagues 8:20—9:12

"As the Egyptian magicians saw nothing more than the finger of God in
the miracle which they could not imitate, that is to say, the work of some
deity, possibly one of the gods of the Egyptians, and not the hand of
Jehovah the God of the Hebrews, who had demanded the release of Israel,
a distinction was made in the plagues which followed between the
Israelites and the Egyptians, and the former were exempted from the
plagues: a fact which was sufficient to prove to anyone that they came
from the God of Israel. To make this the more obvious, the fourth and fifth
plagues were merely announced by Moses to the king. They were not
brought on through the mediation of either himself or Aaron, but were sent
by Jehovah at the appointed time; no doubt for the simple purpose of
precluding the king and his wise men from the excuse which unbelief
might still suggest, viz. that they were produced by the powerful
incantations of Moses and Aaron."159
Flies (the fourth plague) 8:20-32
Moses announced this plague to Pharaoh like the first, in the morning near the Nile River
(v. 20; cf. 7:15).
These insects were very annoying, even more bothersome than the gnats.
"When enraged, they fasten themselves upon the human body, especially
upon the edges of the eyelids. . . . [they] not only tortured, 'devoured' (Ps.
78:45) the men, and disfigured them by the swellings produced by their
sting, but also killed the plants in which they deposited their eggs . . . ."160
"The blood-sucking gadfly or dogfly was something to be abhorred and
may in part have been responsible for the great deal of blind men in the
land. . . . It might also be noted that the Ichneuman fly, which deposits its
eggs on other living things upon which its larvae can feed, was regarded as
the manifestation of the god Uatchit."161
God demonstrated His sovereignty over space as well as nature and time by keeping the
flies out of Goshen and off the Israelites (v. 22). The exact location of Goshen is still
unknown, but its general location seems to have been in the eastern half of the delta
region of Egypt (cf. Gen. 46:28-29, 33-34; 47:1-6, 11).162 Some of the commentators
assumed that the first three plagues did not afflict the Israelites either, though the text
does not say so explicitly (cf. 7:19; 8:2, 16, 17). God distinguished between the two
groups of people primarily to emphasize to Pharaoh that Israel's God was the author of
the plagues and that He was sovereign over the whole land of Egypt (v. 23).
159Keiland Delitzsch, 1:484.

160Ibid.,
1:484-85.
161Davis, p. 106.
162Durham, p. 114.
For the first time Pharaoh gave permission for the Israelites to sacrifice to Yahweh (v.
25), but he would not allow them to leave Egypt. Pharaoh admitted that Yahweh was
specifically the God of Israel ("your God"), but he did not admit that he had an obligation
to obey Him.163
The Egyptians regarded the animals the Israelites would have sacrificed as holy and as
manifestations of their gods. Consequently the sacrifices would have been an
abomination.164
". . . we know from excavations that this Pharaoh, Amenhotep II,

worshipped bulls."165
The abomination that the Israelites' sacrifice would have constituted to the Egyptians also
may have consisted in the method by which the Israelites would have sacrificed these
animals. The Egyptians themselves practiced animal sacrifices, but they had rigorous
procedures for cleansing their sacrificial animals before they killed them, which the
Israelites would not have observed.166
Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites leave Egypt to sacrifice temporarily in the wilderness
after Moses reminded him of the problems involved in sacrificing in Egypt (v. 28). Yet
they were not to go very far from Goshen. Again Pharaoh asked Moses to pray that his
God would remove the plague (v. 28; cf. 8:9-10).
"What is new in this fourth of the mighty acts, apart from the nature of the
miracle itself, is the separation of the land of Goshen from the effects of
miracle (there has been no mention of Goshen's fate in the earlier
accounts), the negotiations between Pharaoh and Moses, with each of
them setting conditions, and the allusion to the antipathy of the Egyptians
to Israel worhsip [sic] (or to Israelite ways, and to Israelites in
general)."167
Murrain (the fifth plague) 9:1-7
This plague, apparently some kind of disease like anthrax, was more severe than the
preceding ones in that it affected the personal property of the Egyptians for the first time.
"The whole creation is bound together by invisible cords. None can sin or
suffer alone. No man liveth or dieth to himself. Our sins send their
vibrations through creation, and infect the very beasts."168
163Meyer, p. 121.
164Cassuto, pp. 108-09. Cf. Cole, p. 95.
165Gispen, p. 94.
166See Ernst Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 114; and J. Philip Hyatt, Exodus, p. 112.
167Durham, p. 115.
168Meyer, p. 122.
All the other plagues had caused the Egyptians irritation or pain to their bodies, but now
God began to reduce their wealth.
"The religious implications of this plague are most interesting and

instructive. A large number of bulls and cows were considered sacred in
Egypt. In the central area of the Delta, four provinces chose as their
emblems various types of bulls and cows. A necropolis of sacred bulls was
discovered near Memphis which place was known for its worship of both
Ptah and a sacred Apis bull. The Apis bull was considered the sacred
animal of the God Ptah; therefore, the associated worship at the site of
Memphis is readily understood. There was at any one time only one sacred
Apis bull. As soon as it died another was chosen to take its place, an event
that attracted a great deal of attention in the area of Memphis.169 The
sacred bull was supposed to have been recognized by twenty-eight
distinctive marks that identified him as deity and indicated that he was the
object of worship.170
"Another deity whose worship would have been affected by the impact of
this plague was Hathor, the goddess of love, beauty and joy represented by
the cow. The worship of this deity was centered mainly in the city of
Denderah although its popularity is witnessed by representations both in
upper and lower Egypt. This goddess is often depicted as a cow suckling
the king giving him divine nourishment. In upper Egypt the goddess
appears as a woman with the head of a cow. In another town—Hathor was
a woman, but her head was adorned with two horns of a cow with a sun
disc between them. Another deity associated with the effects of the plague
would be Mnevis, a sacred bull venerated at Heliopolis and associated
with the god Re."171
"Amenhotep II [the Pharaoh of the plagues] surpassed all his predecessors

in his fanatical devotion to the worship of animals, and especially of the
bull. In 1906 a statue made of sandstone was excavated representing a cow
and Amenhotep II leaning his head under its head; he is also depicted
kneeling under a cow, drinking its divine milk. He is thus seen as child
and slave of the cow goddess. What a threat this must have been to
him!"172
The expression "all the livestock" (v. 6) evidently refers to all cattle in the fields (v. 3).
Some cattle survived this plague (cf. vv. 19, 20, 22).
The only new element in this fifth report is the notice that Pharaoh sent to Goshen to
check on the predicted exclusion of the Israelites' livestock from the epidemic (v. 7).
169Montet, p. 172.
170Author not identified, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 181, cited by Davis.
171Davis, pp. 113-15.
172Gispen, p. 96.
Boils (the sixth plague) 9:8-12
The "soot from a kiln" (v. 8) was significant in two respects. First, the soot was black and
symbolized the blackness of skin in the disease linking the cause with the effect. Second,
the kiln was probably one of the furnaces in which the Israelites baked bricks for Pharaoh
as his slaves. These furnaces became a symbol of Israel's slavery (1:14; 5:7-19). God
turned the suffering of the Israelites in the furnace of Egypt so that they and what they
produced became a source of suffering to the Egyptians.
"The natural substratum of this plague is discovered by most
commentators in the so-called Nile-blisters, which come out in
innumerable little pimples upon the scarlet-coloured skin, and change in a
short space of time into small, round, and thickly-crowded blisters. This is
called by the Egyptians Hamm el Nil, or the heat of the inundation.
According to Dr. Bilharz, it is a rash, which occurs in summer, chiefly
towards the close at the time of the overflowing of the Nile, and produces
a burning and pricking sensation upon the skin; or, in Seetzen's words, 'it
consists of small, red, and slightly rounded elevations in the skin, which
give strong twitches and slight stinging sensations, resembling those of
scarlet fever' (p. 209). The cause of this eruption, which occurs only in
men and not in animals, has not been determined; some attributing it to the
water, and others to the heat."173
"This plague, like previous ones, most assuredly had theological
implications for the Egyptians. While it did not bring death, it was serious
and painful enough to cause many to seek relief from many of the
Egyptian deities charged with the responsibility of healing. Serapis was
one such deity. One is also reminded of Imhotep, the god of medicine and
the guardian of healing sciences. The inability of these gods to act in
behalf of the Egyptian surely must have led to deep despair and
frustration. Magicians, priests, princes, and commoners were all equally
affected by the pain of this judgment, a reminder that the God of the
Hebrews was a sovereign God and superior to all man-made idols."174
"In this plague account we learn that the magicians were still hard at work
opposing the signs of Moses [v. 11]. A new twist, however, is put on their
work here. Their problem now is not that they cannot duplicate the sign—
something which they would not likely have wanted to do; rather, they
cannot 'stand before Moses because of the boils.' This is apparently
intended to show that, like the earlier plagues, this plague did not affect
the Israelites, represented here by Moses and Aaron. It also provides a
graphic picture of the ultimate failure of the magicians to oppose the work
of Moses and Aaron. The magicians lay helpless in their sickbed before
the work of Moses and Aaron."175

174Davis, pp. 116-17.
This is the first time we read that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (v. 12). If a person
continues to harden his own heart, God will then harden it further in judgment (cf. Rom.
1). It is also the first indication that the Egyptian learned men could no longer resist
Moses and his God.
"The lesson here is that when one ignores the prompting of the Lord time
and time again (see 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7), the Lord will confirm that
resistance and make belief impossible."176
6. The seventh, eighth, and ninth plagues 9:13—10:29

Moses announced the purpose of the following plagues to Pharaoh "in the morning" (cf.
7:15; 8:20). This purpose was twofold: that Pharaoh personally might know God's power
(v. 14) and that the whole world might know it (v. 16; cf. Rom. 9:17).
Hail (the seventh plague) 9:13-35
God sent the worst hailstorm Egypt had ever experienced (vv. 18, 24) and accompanied it
with thunder, fire (lightning?), and rain (vv. 23, 34).177
"The recurring thunderclaps . . ., the lightning darting back and forth . . .,

and the severity of the storm . . . all suggest the advent of Yahweh in
theophany . . . and thus the Presence of Yahweh in a more dramatic and
intense coming than anywhere in the mighty-act sequence to this point."178
Pharaoh's repentance was shallow; he acknowledged only his mistake and unfairness, but
he did not repent of his blasphemy of Yahweh (v. 27). Moses perceived Pharaoh's true
attitude. The king had not yet believed that Yahweh was sovereign (v. 29). Fearing Him
means bowing in submission to Him as sovereign over all the earth (v. 30; cf. 10:3).
"What would the worshippers of Nut have thought when they looked
skyward not to see the blessings of the sun and warmth, but the tragedy of
storm and violence. Nut was the sky goddess. It was from her domain that
this tragedy originated. One reflects upon the responsibilities of both Isis
and Seth who also had responsibilities relating to agricultural crops. The
black and burned fields of flax were a silent testimony to the impotence
and incapability of wooden and stone deities."179
The Egyptians used flax (v. 31) to make linen cloth that they preferred over wool. The
Egyptian priests, among other people, dressed in linen. This plague was a judgment on
them, therefore. The Egyptians used barley (v. 31) to make beer and as animal food, but
176Merrill,in The Old . . ., p. 49. Cf. Heb. 6:6.

177See Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):271-74.
178Durham, p. 128.
179Davis, p. 120.
the poorer people also ate it.180 These two crops are in bud in late January and early
February in lower (northern) Egypt, which enables us to identify the time of year when
this plague took place.
This is the first miracle in which we see the presence of death.
Locusts (the eighth plague) 10:1-20
Moses explained another purpose of God in sending further plagues in this context,
namely, so the Israelites in future generations would believe in Yahweh's sovereignty (v.
2)
Locusts were and still are a menace in Egypt as well as in many other countries of the
world. The wind drove them from the wetter areas to the whole land of Egypt, excluding
Goshen, where they multiplied. They consumed the remaining half of the crops and trees
left by the hail.181 Among their other gods, the Egyptians prayed to one manifested as a
locust that they believed would preserve them from attacks by this devastating insect.182
Pharaoh's permission for the male Israelites to leave Egypt to worship God brought on by
the urging of his counselors was arbitrary. Egyptian females worshipped with their
husbands, and Pharaoh could have permitted both men and women to worship Yahweh.
Pharaoh offered Moses three compromises, which the world still offers Christians. First,
he suggested that the Israelites stay in Egypt (8:25). He said, in effect, You can be who
you are, but live as a part of your larger culture; do not be distinctive. Second, he
permitted them to leave Egypt but not to go far from it (8:28). He allowed them to
separate from their culture but not drastically. Third, he gave permission for the males to
leave, but their children had to remain in Egypt (10:8-11). Even godly parents are
sometimes inclined to desire prosperity and worldly position for their children.
Pharaoh's servants seem to have been ready and willing to acknowledge Yahweh as a
god, but for Pharaoh this conflict had greater significance. It was a test of sovereignty.
The advice of Pharaoh's servants reflects their extreme distress (v. 7).
"The king who . . . has a direct knowledge of the predestined order of the
universe, cannot consult mere mortals. His decisions are represented as
spontaneous creative acts motivated by considerations which are beyond
human comprehension, although he may graciously disclose some of
them."183
Joseph had previously delivered the Egyptians from starvation, but now Moses brought
them to starvation. Both effects were the result of official Egyptian policy toward
Abraham's descendants (cf. Gen. 12:3).

181On the tremendously destructive power of locusts, see Davis, pp. 120-22.
182See Montet, pp. 39, 169.
183Frankfort, p. 56.
Pharaoh's confession of sin and his request for forgiveness were also most unusual (v.
16).
"The Egyptian viewed his misdeeds not as sins, but as aberrations. They
would bring him unhappiness because they disturbed his harmonious
integration with the existing world; they might even be explicitly
disapproved by one or another of the gods, but these were always ready to
welcome his better insight. . . . It is especially significant that the
Egyptians never showed any trace of feeling unworthy of the divine
mercy. For he who errs is not a sinner but a fool, and his conversion to a
better way of life does not require repentance but a better
understanding."184
". . . the picture of a halting, confused Pharaoh plays well here at the
conclusion of the plague narratives. It shows that Moses and Aaron were
beginning to get on his nerves."185
The "Red Sea" (v. 19) is the present Red Sea that lies to the east and south of the delta
region. Some students of Exodus have mistakenly called it the Sea of Reeds. This opinion
is due to the large quantity of papyrus reeds and seaweeds that some scholars have
claimed grew on its banks and floated on its waters. However these reeds do not grow in
salt water.186
Darkness (the ninth plague) 10:21-29
Since the other plagues to this point seem to have been natural phenomena, many
commentators interpret this one as such too. The most common explanation for the
darkness that lasted three days (v. 22) and affected the Egyptians but not the Israelites (v.
23) is that it resulted from a dust storm.
A wind ". . . which generally blows in Egypt before and after the vernal
equinox and lasts two or three days, usually rises very suddenly, and fills
the air with such a quantity of fine dust and course sand, that the sun
looses its brightness, the sky is covered with a dense veil, and it becomes
. . . dark. . . ."187
"In the light of Egyptian theology and practice, this [ninth] plague was
very significant. To a large degree it struck at the very heart of Egyptian
worship and humbled one of Egypt's greatest gods. The sun god Re was
considered one of the great blessings in the land of Egypt. His faithfulness
in providing the warmth and light of sun day after day without fail caused
184Ibid.,p. 73.
186See Bernard F. Batto, "Red Sea or Reed Sea?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August
1984):57-63, and my note on 14:2.
them to express great joy over the faithfulness of this deity. The attitude of
the Egyptians regarding the sun is perhaps best expressed in what has been
called 'a universalist hymn to the sun' translated by John Wilson.
"'Hail to thee, beautiful Re of every day, who rises at dawn

without ceasing, Khepri wearying (himself) with labor! Thy
rays are in (one's) face, without one knowing it. Fine gold
is not like the radiance of thee. Thou who has constructed
thyself, thou didst fashion thy body, a shaper who was
(himself) not shaped; unique in his nature, passing eternity,
the distant one, under whose guidance are millions of ways,
just as thy radiance is like the radiance of heaven and thy
color glistens more than its surface.'188
"The faithful warmth and provision of the sun was something fully
enjoyed by both the Egyptian statesman and the laborer who worked in the
fields. They praised the sun because 'thou presentest thyself daily at dawn.
Steadfast is thy sailing which carries thy majesty.'189
"Of particular significance with respect to this plague was the prestige of
the god Amun-Re, the chief deity of Thebes and a sun god. In the New
Kingdom period [when the plagues took place] this god was the Egyptian
national god, part of a very important triad of deities including Amun-Re,
his wife Mut, and their son Khons. Amun-Re was commonly represented
by sacred animals such as the ram and the goose. A number of other
deities were associated with the sun, sky, and moon; for example Aten was
the deified sun disc. This god was proclaimed to be the only god by
[Pharaoh] Akhenaten with emphasis on a special cult centered at Amarna.
Atum was also another important god in lower Egypt whose worship was
centered mainly at Heliopolis. He was the god of the setting sun and was
usually depicted in human form. Sacred animals associated with this god
were the snake and the lion. The god Khepre who often appeared in the
shape of the beetle (Scarabeus sacer) was a form of the sun god Re.
Another very important sun god was Horus often symbolized by a winged
sun disc. He was considered to be the son of Osiris and Isis but also the
son of Re and the brother of Seth. Harakhte, another form of Horus and
identified with the sun, was venerated mainly at Heliopolis and was
represented by the hawk.
"Among the deities affected by this tragic darkness was Hathor a sky
goddess and likewise the goddess of love and joy. Hathor was the tutelary
deity of the Theban necropolis. She was venerated particularly at Dendera
and depicted with cow horns or was a human figure which was cow-
headed. The sky goddess Nut would also have been involved in the
188Pritchard, pp. 367-68.

189Ibid., p. 368.
humiliation of this plague. What of the prestige of Thoth, a moon god of

Hermopolis? He was also the god of writing and of the computation of
time.
"This list could be greatly extended involving a number of other deities

associated with the sun, stars, and light but the above are sufficient to
indicate the tremendous importance of the sun and sunlight to the
Egyptians. . . . One wonders what the prestige of Pharaoh must have been
at this point. Among the divine attributes of Pharaoh was the fact that he
was in fact a representation of Re '. . . by whose beams one sees, he is one
who illuminates the two lands [Upper and Lower Egypt] more than the sun
disc.'"190
Pharaoh still did not submit completely to Yahweh's sovereign demands (v. 24), so a
tenth plague followed.
"For the first time, Yahweh moves to make Pharaoh obstinate during the
negotiations. Heretofore he has made Pharaoh stubborn after he has
agreed to Moses' demands, after Yahweh's mighty action has ceased and
before Moses can leave with the sons of Israel."191
"It is a sad farewell when God, in the persons of his servants, refuses
anymore to see the face of the wicked."192
The world had begun in total darkness (Gen. 1:2), and now Egypt had returned to that
chaotic state.193 Richard Patterson argued convincingly that the origin of much of the
apocalyptic imagery later in the Old Testament derives from the Exodus event.194
7. The proclamation of the tenth plague ch. 11
". . . the slaying of the first-born is both the culmination of the plague
narrative and the beginning of the passover tradition. Chapter 11 as a
literary unit, therefore, points both backward and forward."195
Evidently Moses made this announcement to Pharaoh before leaving his presence (cf.
10:29; 11:8). Thus this chapter unfolds the narrative in logical rather than chronological
order. Verses 1 and 2 give the foundation for the announcement in verses 4-8.
Chronologically verses 1-3 point back to 3:19-22.
190Davis, pp. 125-28. His last quotation is from Pritchard, p. 431.

191Durham, p. 143.
192George Bush, Notes on Exodus, 1:30.
194Richard D. Patterson, "Wonders in the Heavens and on the Earth: Apolcalyptic Imagery in the Old
Testament," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):385-403.
195Childs, p. 161.
Whereas Moses and Aaron had been the mediators through whom God had sent the first
nine plagues, this last one came directly from God.
11:1-3 The Israelites asked the Egyptians to give them the articles mentioned, not
to lend them with a view to getting them back (v. 2).196 The Israelites
received many such gifts from the Egyptians, enough to build the
tabernacle, its furniture, furnishings, and utensils, as well as the priests'
garments. This reflects the respect and fear the Israelites enjoyed in Egypt
following these plagues.
"The Egyptians thus are 'picked clean' (3:22 and 12:36) by

Israel as a result of yet another action by Yahweh in behalf
of his people, demonstrating the power of his Presence."197
11:4-8 The first-born sons, who were not old enough to be fathers themselves,
would die (v. 5). This is a deduction supported by the following facts.
First-born sons were symbolic of a nation's strength and vigor (cf. Gen.
49:3). First-born sons were also those through whom the family line
descended. Sons old enough to be fathers who had themselves fathered
sons were members of the older generation. The younger generation was
the focus of this plague. It was the male children of the Israelites that
Pharaoh had killed previously (1:15-22). When God later claimed the tribe
of Levi in place of Israel's first-born whom He spared in this plague (Num.
3:12-13; cf. Exod. 22:29; 34:20), He chose only the males.
We owe God the first fruits of our labors because He is the source of all
life and fruitfulness.
"In common with the rest of the ancient Near East, the
Hebrews believed that the deity, as lord of the manor, was
entitled to the first share of all produce. The firstfruits of
plants and the firstborn of animals and man were his. The
Lord demonstrated that he gave Egypt its life and owned it
by taking its firstborn."198
Some critics of the Bible have challenged God's justice in putting to death
so many "innocent" children. Looked at one way, a priori, whatever God
does is right because He is God. Looked at another way, God as the giver
and sustainer of life is righteous in withdrawing life from any creature at
any time because life belongs to Him. He can take it as well as give it at
will. Furthermore the fact that humans are all sinners and sin results in
death means that God is just in requiring the punishment for any
196For a history of the interpretation of this controversial statement, see Yehuda T. Radday, "The Spoils of
Egypt," Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 12 (1983):127-47.
197Durham, p. 148.
198Bruce K. Waltke, "Cain and His Offering," Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):368.
individual's sin at any time. We do not have any claim on God's grace.
God graciously did not kill all the Egyptians.
Moses' anger reflected God's wrath against Pharaoh for his stubborn
rebellion (v. 8).
"To be in the presence of evil and not be angry is a dreadful

spiritual and moral malady."199
11:9-10 "These two verses are considered by many commentators

as redundant or misplaced. But they can easily be explained
as a summary and epilogue of the Section of the Plagues.
"In the following section not only the course of events will
change, but also the background and the dramatis
personae. Till now the central theme was the negotiations
conducted by Moses and Aaron on the one hand, and
Pharaoh and his servants on the other, in Pharaoh's palace
or its environs. But henceforth the principal hero of the
drama will be the people of Israel in its totality, and the
perspective will be enlarged. Moses and Aaron will no
longer be sent to Pharaoh but to the Israelites, in order to
prepare them for the exodus and to implement it; nor will
they be enjoined again to perform acts for the purpose of
bringing the plagues, for the last plague will take place of
its own accord, through the instrumentality of the angel of
the Lord. Since the episode about to be narrated represents
a new theme, and one, moreover, of fundamental
importance, it is desireable [sic] that before reading this
account we should look back for a moment, and review
generally the events that have taken place thus far, as well
as the situation obtaining at the conclusion of those events.
This review is provided for us in the verses under
consideration."200
The theological lesson that Pharaoh and the Egyptians were to learn from this plague was
that Yahweh would destroy the gods that the Egyptians' gods supposedly procreated.
Pharaoh was a god and so was his first-born son who would succeed him. The Egyptians
attributed the power to procreate to various gods. It was a power for which the Egyptians
as well as all ancient peoples depended on their gods. By killing the first-born Yahweh
was demonstrating His sovereignty once again. However this plague had more far-
reaching consequences and was therefore more significant than all the previous plagues
combined.

200Cassuto, pp. 134-35.
"Possibly no land in antiquity was more obsessed with death than Egypt.
The real power of the priesthood lay in its alleged ability to guarantee the
dead a safe passage to the 'Western World' under the benign rule of Osiris.
This terrible visitation which defied and defies all rational explanation,
showed that Yahweh was not only lord of the forces of nature, but also of
life and death."201
". . . it is by means of the account of the last plague that the author is able
to introduce into the Exodus narrative in a clear and precise way the
notion of redemption from sin and death. The idea of salvation from
slavery and deliverance from Egypt is manifest throughout the early
chapters of Exodus. The idea of redemption and salvation from death,
however, is the particular contribution of the last plague, especially as the
last plague is worked into the narrative by the author. . . .
"By means of the last plague, then, the writer is able to bring the Exodus
narratives into the larger framework of the whole Pentateuch and
particularly that of the early chapters of Genesis. In the midst of the
judgment of death, God provided a way of salvation for the promised seed
(Ge 3:15). Like Enoch (5:22-24), Noah (6:9), and Lot (19:16-19), those
who walk in God's way will be saved from death and destruction."202
This tenth plague brought Yahweh's concentrated education of both the Egyptians and the
Israelites to a climactic conclusion.
"In short, therefore, what were the essential purposes of these ten plagues?
First of all, they were certainly designed to free the people of God.
Second, they were a punishment upon Egypt for her portion in the long
oppression of the Hebrews [cf. Gen. 15:13]. Third, they were designed to
demonstrate the foolishness of idolatry. They were a supreme example
both for the Egyptians and for Israel. It was by these that Jehovah revealed
His uniqueness in a way that had never before been revealed (6:3; cf.
10:2). Finally, the plagues clearly demonstrated the awesome, sovereign
power of God. In the Book of Genesis, God is described as the Creator of
the heavens and the earth and all the laws of nature. In the Book of Exodus
the exercise of that creative power is revealed as it leads to the
accomplishment of divine goals. God's sovereignty is not only exercised
over the forces of nature, but is also revealed against evil nations and their
rulers."203
C. GOD'S REDEMPTION OF HIS PEOPLE 12:1—13:16

Scholars differ in their opinions as to when Israel actually became a nation. Many have
made a strong case for commencing national existence with the institution of the
201Ellison,p. 60.
203Davis, pp. 151-52.
Passover, which this section records. The proper translation of the Hebrew word pasah is
really "hover over" rather than "pass over."204
". . . properly understood, the Exodus also is precisely the event and the
moment that coincides with the historical expression of God's election of
Israel. The choice of Israel as the special people of Yahweh occurred not
at Sinai but in the land of Goshen. The Exodus was the elective event;
Sinai was its covenant formalization."205
God gave the Israelites a national calendar that set them apart from other nations (v. 2).
They also received instructions for two national feasts that they were to perpetuate
forever thereafter (vv. 14, 17, 24). Also Moses revealed and explained the event that
resulted in their separation from Egypt here.
1. The consecration of Israel as the covenant nation 12:1-28
"The account of the final proof of Yahweh's Presence in Egypt has been
expanded by a series of instructions related to cultic [ritual worship]
requirements designed to commemorate that proof and the freedom it
purchased."206
Directions for the Passover 12:1-14
The Jews called their first month Abib (v. 2). After the Babylonian captivity they
renamed it Nisan (Neh. 2:1; Esth. 3:7). It corresponds to our March-April. Abib means
"ear-month" referring to the month when the grain was in the ear.
"The reference to the Passover month as the 'lead month,' 'the first of the
year's months' is best understood as a double entendre. On the one hand,
the statement may be connected with an annual calendar, but on the other
hand, it is surely an affirmation of the theological importance of Yahweh's
Passover."207
The spring was an appropriate time for the Exodus because it symbolized new life and
growth. Israel had two calendars: one religious (this one) and one civil (23:16). The civil
year began exactly six months later in the fall. The Israelites used both calendars until the
Babylonian captivity. After that, they used only the civil calendar.208
204Meredith G. Kline, "The Feast of Cover-over," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4
(December 1994):497-510.
205Eugene H. Merrill, "A Theology of the Pentateuch," in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, p. 31.
Cf. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 259.
206Durham, p. 152.
207Ibid., p. 153.
208See James F. Strange, "The Jewish Calendar," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):28-32. Also see the
Appendix of these notes for a chart of the Hebrew calendar.
". . . the sense of the verse is: you are now beginning to count a new year,
now the new year will bring you a change of destiny."209
The Passover was a communal celebration. The Israelites were to observe it with their
redeemed brethren, not alone (v. 4). They celebrated the corporate redemption of the
nation corporately (cf. Luke 22:17-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-29).
Since the lamb was a substitute sacrifice its required characteristics are significant (v. 5;
cf. John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:19).
"Freedom from blemish and injury not only befitted the sacredness of the
purpose to which they were devoted, but was a symbol of the moral
integrity of the person represented by the sacrifice. It was to be a male, as
taking the place of the male first-born of Israel; and a year old, because it
was not till then that it reached the full, fresh vigour of its life."210
Some of the ancient rabbis taught that God wanted the Jews to sacrifice the Passover
lamb exactly at sunset because of the instructions in verse 6 and Deuteronomy 16:6.
However "at twilight" literally means "between the two evenings." The more widely held
Jewish view was that the first evening began right after noon and the second began when
the sun set.211 In Josephus' day, which was also Jesus' day, the Jews slew the Passover
lamb in mid-afternoon.212 The Lord Jesus Christ died during this time (i.e., about 3:00
p.m., Matt. 27:45-50; Mark 15:34-37; Luke 23:44-46; 1 Cor. 5:7).
The sprinkling of the blood on the sides and top of the doorway into the house was a sign
(v. 7; cf. v. 13). It had significance to the Jews. The door represented the house (cf.
20:10; Deut. 5:14; 12:17; et al.). The smearing of the blood on the door with hyssop was
an act of expiation (cleansing; cf. Lev. 14:49-53; Num. 19:18-19). This act consecrated
the houses of the Israelites as altars. They had no other altars in Egypt. They were not to
apply the blood to the other member of the doorframe, the threshold, because someone
might tread on it. The symbolic value of the blood made this action inappropriate. The
whole ritual signified to the Jews that the blood (life poured out, Lev. 17:11) of a sinless,
divinely appointed substitute cleansed their sins and resulted in their setting apart
(sanctification) to God. The application of the blood as directed was a demonstration of
the Israelites' faith in God's promise that He would pass over them (v. 13; cf. Heb. 11:28).
The method of preparing and eating the lamb was also significant (vv. 8-11). God
directed that they roast it in the manner common to nomads rather than eating it raw as
many of their contemporary pagans ate their sacrificial meat (cf. 1 Sam. 2:14-15). They
were not to boil the lamb either (v. 9). Roasting enabled the host to place the lamb on the
table undivided and unchanged in its essential structure and appearance (v. 9). This
would have strengthened the impression of the substitute nature of the lamb. It looked
like an animal rather than just meat.
209Cassuto, p. 137.
211Gispen, p. 117.
212Josephus, 14:4:3.
The unleavened bread was bread that had not risen (cf. 12:34). The bitter herbs—perhaps
endive, chicory, and or other herbs native to Egypt—would later recall to the Israelites
who ate them the bitter experiences of life in Egypt. However the sweetness of the lamb
overpowered the bitterness of the herbs. The Israelites were not to eat the parts of the
meal again as leftovers (v. 10). It was a special sacrificial meal, not just another dinner.
Moreover they were to eat it in haste (v. 11) as a memorial of the events of the night
when they first ate it, the night when God provided deliverance for His people.213
"Those consuming the meat were not to be in the relaxed dress of home,
but in traveling attire; not at ease around a table, but with walking-stick in
hand; not in calm security, but in haste, with anxiety."214
In slaying the king's son and many of the first-born animals, God smote the gods of Egypt
that these living beings represented (v. 12). This was the final proof of Yahweh's
sovereignty.
"The firstborn of Pharaoh was not only his successor to the throne, but by
the act of the gods was a specially born son having divine property. Gods
associated with the birth of children would certainly have been involved in
a plague of this nature. These included Min, the god of procreation and
reproduction, along with Isis who was the symbol of fecundity or the
power to produce offspring. Since Hathor was not only a goddess of love
but one of seven deities who attended the birth of children, she too would
be implicated in the disaster of this plague. From excavations we already
have learned of the tremendous importance of the Apis bull, a firstborn
animal and other animals of like designation would have had a tremendous
theological impact on temple attendants as well as commoners who were
capable of witnessing this tragic event. The death cry which was heard
throughout Egypt was not only a wail that bemoaned the loss of a son or
precious animals, but also the incapability of the many gods of Egypt to
respond and protect them from such tragedy."215
Egyptian religion and culture valued sameness and continuity very highly. The Egyptians
even minimized the individual differences between the Pharaohs.
"The death of a king was, in a manner characteristic of the Egyptians,

glossed over in so far as it meant a change."216
The Egyptians had to acknowledge the death of Pharaoh's son, however, as an event that
Yahweh had brought to pass.
213For an explanation of the history and modern observance of the Passover by Jews, the Seder, or "order
of service," see Youngblood, pp. 61-64. For an account of a Seder observance held in Dallas on April 2,
1988, see Robert Andrew Barlow, "The Passover Seder," Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):63-68.
214Durham, p. 154.
215Davis, p. 141.
216Frankfort, p. 102.
Note that God said that when He saw the blood He would pass over the Jews (v. 13). He
did not say when they saw it. The ground of their security was propitiation. The blood
satisfied God. Therefore the Israelites could rest. The reason we can have peace with God
is that Jesus Christ's blood satisfied God. Many Christians have no peace because the
blood of the Lamb of God does not satisfy them. They think something more has to
supplement His work (i.e., human good works). However, God says the blood of the
sacrifice He provided is enough (cf. 1 John 2:1-2).
One writer believed that the first Passover was the origin of the concept of "the day of the
Lord," which is so prominent in the writing prophets. The day of the Lord that they
referred to was an instance of divine intervention, similar to what God did at the first
Passover, involving judgment and blessing.217
Directions for the Feast of Unleavened Bread 12:15-20
The Feast of Unleavened Bread began with the Passover meal and continued for seven
more days (v. 15). The bread that the Jews used contained no leaven (yeast), which made
it like a cracker rather than cake in its consistency. The Old Testament uses leaven as a
symbol of sin often. Leaven gradually permeates dough, and it affects every part of the
dough. Here it not only reminded the Israelites in later generations that their ancestors
fled Egypt in haste, before their dough could rise. It also reminded them that their lives
should resemble the unleavened bread as redeemed people. Bread is the staff of life and
represents life. The life of the Israelites was to be separate from sin since they had
received new life as a result of God's provision of the Passover lamb. Eating unleavened
bread for a week and removing all leaven from their houses would have impressed the
necessity of a holy life upon the Israelites.
"For us the leaven must stand for the selfness which is characteristic of us
all, through the exaggerated instinct of self-preservation and the heredity
received through generations, which have been a law to themselves,
serving the desires of the flesh and of the mind. We are by nature self-
confident, self-indulgent, self-opinionated; we live with self as our goal,
and around the pivot of I our whole being revolves."218
Anyone who refused to abide by these rules repudiated the spiritual lesson contained in
the symbols and was therefore "cut off from Israel." This phrase means to experience
separation from the rights and privileges of the nation through excommunication or, more
often, death.219
"Playing fast and loose with God's prescribed practices is to show

disrespect for God's honor and dignity."220
217Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, p. 315.

218Meyer, pp. 138-39.
219Cf. Keil and Delitzsch, 1:224; and Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, pp. 241-2.
220Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, p. 466.
The Israelites celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of Abib, and the Feast of
Unleavened Bread continued through the twenty-first (v. 18). God's call to the Israelites
to live holy lives arose from what God had done for them. Consecration follows
redemption; it is not a prerequisite for redemption. Similarly God calls us to be holy in
view of what He has done for us (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). He does not say we can experience
redemption if we become holy first.
Sunset ended one day and began the next for the Jews (cf. Gen. 1:5; et al.).
The communication and execution of the directions concerning the Passover 12:21-
28
Hyssop grew commonly on rocks and walls in the Near East and Egypt (v. 22). If it was
the same plant that we identify as hyssop today, masses of tiny white flowers and a
fragrant aroma characterized it. The Jews used it for applying blood to the door in the
Passover ritual because of its availability and suitability as a liquid applicator. They also
used it in the purification rite for lepers (Lev. 14:4, 6), the purification rite for a plague
(Lev. 14:49-52), and for the red heifer sacrifice ritual (Num. 19:2-6).
"The hairy surface of its leaves and branches holds liquids well and makes
it suitable as a sprinkling device for purification rituals."221
"The people were instructed that the only way they could avert the
'destroyer' was to put the blood of the lamb on their doorposts. Though the
text does not explicitly state it, the overall argument of the Pentateuch . . .
would suggest that their obedience to the word of the Lord in this instance
was an evidence of their faith and trust in him [cf. Heb. 11:28]."222
God through Moses stressed the significance and the importance of perpetuating the
Passover (v. 26).
"The Israelitish child will not unthinkingly practice a dead worship; he

will ask: What does it mean? and the Israelitish father must not suppress
the questions of the growing mind, but answer them, and thus begin the
spiritualizing [the explanation of the spiritual significance] of the paschal
rite."223
Worship and obedience occur together again here (vv. 27-28). These are the two proper
responses to God's provision of redemption. They express true faith. These are key words
in Exodus.
223J. P. Lange, "Exodus or the Second Book of Moses," in Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scripture,
1:2:39-40.
"The section closes with one of those rare notices in Israel's history: they
did exactly what the Lord had commanded (v. 28)—and well they might
after witnessing what had happened to the obstinate king and people of
Egypt!"224
"By this act of obedience and faith, the people of Israel made it manifest
that they had put their trust in Jehovah; and thus the act became their
redemption."225
2. The death of the first-born and the release of Israel 12:29-36
The angel struck the Egyptians at midnight, the symbolic hour of judgment (v. 29; cf.
Matt. 25:5-6), when they were asleep ". . . to startle the king and his subjects out of their
sleep of sin."226 Pharaoh had originally met Moses' demands with contemptuous insult
(5:4). Then he tried a series of compromises (8:25, 28; 10:8-11, 24). All of these
maneuvers were unacceptable to God.
There is evidence from Egyptology that the man who succeeded Amenhotep II, the
pharaoh of the plagues, was not his first-born son.227 His successor was Thutmose IV
(1425-1417 B.C.), a son of Amenhotep II but evidently not his first-born. Thutmose IV
went to some pains to legitimatize his right to the throne. This would not have been
necessary if he had been the first-born. So far scholars have found no Egyptian records of
the death of Amenhotep II's first-born son.
"Thutmose IV claimed that when he was still a prince he had a dream in

which the sun god promised him the throne; this implies that he was not
the one who would be expected to succeed to the throne under normal
circumstances."228
Remember Joseph's dreams.
In contrast to the former plagues, this one was not just a heightened and supernaturally
directed natural epidemic but a direct act of God Himself (cf. vv. 12, 13, 23, 27, 29).
We need to understand "no home" in its context (v. 30). There was no Egyptian home in
which there was a first-born son, who was not a father himself, that escaped God's
judgment of physical death.
"This series of five imperative verbs [in v. 31], three meaning 'go' (dlh is
used twice) and one meaning 'take,' coupled with five usages of the
emphatic particle mg 'also' . . ., marvelously depicts a Pharaoh whose

225Johnson, p. 62.
227See Unger, Archaeology and . . ., pp. 142-44; Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,
p. 218; and Pritchard, p. 449.
228Gispen, p. 113.
reserve of pride is gone, who must do everything necessary to have done

with Moses and Israel and the Yahweh who wants them for his own."229
Pharaoh's request that Moses would bless him is shocking since the Egyptians regarded
Pharaoh as a god (v. 32; cf. Gen. 47:7).
The reader sees God in two roles in this section, representing the two parts of Israel's
redemption. He appears as Judge satisfied by the blood of the innocent sin-bearer, and He
is the Deliverer of Israel who liberated the nation from its slavery.
Redemption involves the payment of a price. What was the price of Israel's redemption?
It was the lives of the lambs that God provided as the substitutes for Israel's first-born
sons who would have died otherwise (cf. Isaac in Gen. 22, and Jesus Christ, the only-
begotten of the Father). The first-born sons remained God's special portion (Num. 8:17-
18). The Egyptian first-born sons died as a punishment on the Egyptians. The Egyptians
had enslaved God's people and had not let them go, and they had executed male Israelite
babies (1:15-22) possibly for the last 80 years.230 God owns all life. He just leases it to
His creatures. God paid the price of Israel's redemption to Himself. He purchased the
nation to be a special treasure for Himself and for a special purpose (19:5).
3. The exodus of Israel out of Egypt 12:37-42
12:37-39 The record of Israel's sojourn in the wilderness really begins here.
"Rameses" is probably the same city as "Raamses," also called Avaris (v.
37; cf. 1:11). It was the city from which the Israelites left Egypt, and it lay
somewhere east of the Nile delta in the land of Goshen. Archaeologists
have not identified Succoth certainly either. However from the context it
seems that Succoth was only a few miles from Rameses. It may have been
a district rather than a town.231 Perhaps Cassuto was right when he wrote
the following.
"Succoth was a border town named in Egyptian Tkw. Here

the name appears in a Hebrew or Hebraized form.
Apparently it was situated at the tell called by the
Egyptians today Tell el-Maskhuta."232
Many commentators concluded that, since there were about 600,000

Israelite males, the total number of Israelites must have been about two
million. Though the Hebrew word translated "thousand" (eleph) can also
mean "family," "clan," "military unit," or something else, most translators
have preferred "thousand" (cf. Exod. 38:26; Num. 1:45-47). In view of the
229Durham, p. 167.
230Ramm, p. 79.
231Edward Naville, The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus, p. 23; Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 379.
232Cassuto, 147.
incongruities posed by such a large number (cf. Exod. 13:17; 14:21-31;

16:3-4; 17:8-13; 18:14-16; 23:29-30; Num. 14; Deut. 7:7, 22; Josh. 7:5; et
al.), eleph may have meant "hundred" or "unit of ten" or some other
number smaller than "thousand," though the evidence to support this
theory is presently weak, in my opinion.
Moses referred to the "mixed multitude" often in the account of the

wilderness wanderings that follows. This group probably included
Egyptian pagans and God-fearers (v. 38; cf. 9:20) and an assortment of
other people including other enslaved Semites. For one reason or another
these people took this opportunity to leave or escape from Egypt with the
Israelites. This group proved to be a source of trouble in Israel and led the
Israelites in complaining and opposing Moses (e.g., Num. 11:4).
12:40-42 The text is very clear that Israel was in Egypt 430 years "to the very day"
(v. 41). This probably refers to the time between when Jacob entered
Egypt with his family (1876 B.C.) to the day of the Exodus (1446 B.C.).
Galatians 3:17 also refers to 430 years. This figure, however, probably
represents the time from God's last reconfirmation of the Abrahamic
covenant to Jacob at Beer-sheba (1875 B.C.; Gen. 46:2-4) to the giving of
the Mosaic Law at Sinai (1446 B.C.; Exod. 19). Genesis 15:13, 16 and
Acts 7:6 give the time of the Israelites' enslavement in Egypt as 400 years
(1846-1446 B.C.). The "about 450 years" spoken of in Acts 13:19 includes
the 400 year sojourn in Egypt, the 40 years of wilderness wanderings, and
the seven year conquest of the land (1875-1395 B.C.).233
REFERENCES TO ISRAEL'S YEARS IN EGYPT
1875 1845 1446 1395

The 430 year sojourn in Egypt
(Exod. 12:40-41; Gal. 3:17)
The 400 years of bondage in Egypt

(Gen. 15:13, 16; Acts 7:6)
The "about" 450 years of bondage, wandering, and conquest

(Acts 13:19-20)
The Exodus
Jacob and the The
Israelites giving of Conquest
moves
enslaved the Mosaic completed
to Egypt
Covenant
Scholars have debated hotly and still argue about the date of the Exodus. Many
conservatives hold a date very close to 1446 B.C.234 Their preference for this date rests
233Harold W. Hoehner, "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage," Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-
December 1969):306-16, presented three other ways to reconcile these references.
234See, for example, Wolf, pp. 141-48.
first on 1 Kings 6:1 that states that the Exodus took place 480 years before the fourth year
of Solomon's reign. That year was quite certainly 967 B.C. Second, this view harmonizes
with Judges 11:26 that says 300 years elapsed between Israel's entrance into Canaan and
the commencement of Jephthah's rule as a judge.235 Most liberals and many evangelicals
hold to a date for the Exodus about 1290 B.C.236 This opinion rests on the belief that the
existence of the city of Raamses (1:11; et al.) presupposes the existence of Pharaoh
Ramses II (ca. 1300-1234 B.C.).237 Also followers of this view point to supposed
similarities between the times of Pharaoh Ramses II and the Exodus period. Another view
has also been popularized that places the Exodus about 1470 B.C.238
4. Regulations regarding the Passover 12:43-51

Before any male could eat the Passover he had to undergo circumcision. Moses stressed
this requirement strongly in this section. The rationale behind this rule was that before
anyone could observe the memorial of redemption he first had to exercise faith in the
promises God had given to Abraham. Furthermore he had to demonstrate that faith by
submitting to the rite of circumcision, the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. This
requirement should have reminded the Israelites and all other believers who partook of
the Passover that the Passover rite did not make a person acceptable to God. Faith in the
promises of God did that. Foreigners who were non-Israelites could and did become
members of the nation by faith in the Abrahamic Covenant promises and participation in
the rite of circumcision. There were both circumcised and uncircumcised foreigners who
lived among the Israelites during the wilderness march.
Here Moses revealed the requirement that the Passover host was not to break a bone of
the paschal lamb (v. 46; cf. vv. 3-9). Not a bone of the Lamb of God was broken either
(John 19:36).
5. The sanctification of the first-born 13:1-16

This section is somewhat repetitive, but the emphasis is on the Lord's right to the first-
born in Israel and how the Israelites were to acknowledge that right. The repetition
stresses its importance.
235See Ronald Youngblood, "A New Look at an Old Problem: The Date of the Exodus," Christianity Today
26:20 (Dec. 17, 1982):58, 60; Charles Dyer, "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined," Bibliotheca Sacra
140:559 (July-September 1983):225-43; Archer, "Old Testament History . . .," pp. 106-9; and Bruce K.
Waltke, "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus," Bibliotheca Sacra
129:513 (January-March 1973):33-47.
236E.g., Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, pp. 73-75; Durham, p. xxvi; and James K.
Hoffmeier, "What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood," Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 50:2 (June 2007):225-47. For refutation of the late date theory, see Bryant
G. Wood, "The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 48:3 (September 2005):475-89; and idem, "The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446
BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:2 (June
2007):249-58.
237See my comments on 1:11 above.
238See John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and the Conquest; and idem, "Redating the Exodus," Biblical
Archaeology Review 13:5 (September-October 1986):40-53, 66-68.
13:1-2 "Every" refers to the first-born males only (v. 2). This is clear from the
Hebrew word used and the context (vv. 12, 13).
13:3-10 The Passover ("it," cf. v. 3) was to be a sign to the Israelites of God's
powerful work for them.
13:11-16 The dedication of every first-born Israelite male baby was to take place
after the nation had entered the Promised Land (vv. 5, 11-12). This was to
be a memorial of God's redemption from Egyptian slavery, as were the
feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread (cf. 12:14). However, God took
the Levites for His special possession in place of the first-born. This
happened at Mt. Sinai (Num. 3:12-13). Consequently this dedication never
took place, but the Israelites did circumcise their sons and observe the
Passover when they first entered the Promised Land (Josh. 5:4-7).
God may or may not have intended that the Jews should literally wear the
"phylacteries" (lit. frontlet-bands, or head-bands, v. 16; Heb. tephilin).
"The line of thought referred to merely expresses the idea,
that the Israelites were not only to retain the commands of
God in their hearts, and to confess them with the mouth,
but to fulfil them with the hand, or in act and deed, and thus
to show themselves in their whole bearing as the guardians
and observers of the law. As the hand is the medium of
action, and carrying in the hand represents handling, so the
space between the eyes, or the forehead, is that part of the
body which is generally visible, and what is worn there is
worn to be seen. This figurative interpretation is confirmed
and placed beyond doubt by such parallel passages as Prov.
iii. 3, 'Bind them (the commandments) about thy neck;
write them upon the tables of thine heart' (cf. vers. 21, 22,
iv. 21, vi. 21, 22, vii. 3)."239
"For two thousand years and more, observant Jews have
taken those passages literally. The paragraphs that form
their contexts (Exod. 13:1-10; 13:11-16; Deut. 6:4-9;
11:13-21) are written on four strips of parchment and
placed in two small leather boxes, one of which the pious
Jewish man straps on his forehead and the other on his left
arm before he says his morning prayers. The practice may
have originated as early as the period following the exile to
Babylon in 586 B.C.
"It hardly needs to be said that there is nothing inherently
wrong with such a custom. The boxes, called 'phylacteries'
are mentioned in Matthew 23:5, where Jesus criticizes a

certain group of Pharisees and teachers of the law for

wearing them. Our Lord, however, condemns not the
practice as such but the ostentatious use of 'wide'
phylacteries as part of a general statement about those who
flaunt their religiosity in public: 'Everything they do is done
for men to see.'
"But although the proper and modest use of phylacteries
might be spiritually legitimate, it is probably best to
understand the references from Exodus and Deuteronomy
as figures of speech, since similar statements are found
elsewhere in the Old Testament."240
D. GOD'S COMPLETION OF ISRAEL'S LIBERATION 13:17—15:21

The Israelites now began their migration from Goshen to Canaan.
1. The journey from Succoth to Etham 13:17-22
"The way of the land of the Philistines" refers to the most northern of three routes
travelers took from Egypt to Canaan (v. 17). The others lay farther south. The Egyptians
had heavily fortified this caravan route, also called the Via Maris (the way of the sea).
The Egyptians would have engaged Israel in battle had the chosen people gone that way.
The people marched in an

LAKE
orderly fashion (v. 18). This MENZALEH
is the meaning of "martial CANAAN
array." Moses had not yet
organized them as an army. Zoan *
GOSHEN
Raamses *
Succoth was evidently north Succoth? * * Etham?
and west of the Bitter Lakes * BITTER LAKES
(v. 20). Today the Suez Pi-hahiroth?
WILDERNESS
Canal connects the Red Sea OF SHUR
with the Mediterranean by
* Marah
way of the Bitter Lakes.
* Elim?
Archaeologists have not yet GULF OF
identified certainly the sites 100 miles SUEZ WILDERNESS
referred to here such as OF SIN?
Succoth and Etham, as well Rephidim?* ^
as many of those mentioned Mt. Sinai?
ISRAEL'S JOURNEY
in the records of the
FROM EGYPT TO SINAI RED SEA
Israelites' journey (e.g.,
Num. 33). Consequently it is
virtually impossible to pin down their exact locations. Many of these sites were nothing
240Youngblood, pp. 66-67.

more than stopping points or oases; they were not established towns. Kaiser wrote
concerning their locations, "Everyone is guessing!"241 The only stopping-place in the
wilderness wanderings that scholars have been able to identify without dispute is Kadesh
Barnea.
The wilderness referred to in this verse would have been the wilderness of Shur located
to the east of the Nile delta.
There was only one cloudy pillar (v. 21; cf. 14:24). Sailhamer believed there was one
pillar of cloud and another pillar of fire, but this is a rare view.242
"Like the burning bush (3:2), the pillar was the visible symbol of God's
presence among His people. The Lord Himself was in the pillar (13:21;
14:24) and often spoke to the people from it ([chs. 19—20;] Num. 12:5-6;
Deut. 31:15-16; Ps. 99:6-7). The later hymn-writers of Israel fondly
remembered it (Pss. 78:14; 105:39). A similar cloud of smoke came to
represent the glory of the Lord in the sanctuary throughout much of
Israel's history (Exod. 40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:10-11; Isa. 4:5; 6:3-4)."243
The pillar of cloud and fire remained over the Israelites until they entered Canaan under
Joshua's leadership (v. 22). Perhaps it appeared as Meyer imagined it.
"When the excessive heat made it necessary for Israel to march at night,
the light of the Fiery Pillar was enough to light the way: and when in the
day the scorching glare of the sun was blinding, the cloud spread itself
abroad like a great umbrella, so that the women and children could travel
in comparative comfort [cf. Ps. 84:11]."244
2. Israel's passage through the Red Sea ch. 14

14:1-4 Scholars have not been able to locate definitely the sites referred to in
verse 2.
"An Egyptian papyrus associates Baal Zephon with

Tahpahnes . . . a known site near Lake Menzaleh in the
northeastern delta region."245
However, it seems that the crossing took place farther south in view of the
implication that it took the Israelites no less and no more than three days
to reach Marah (15:22-23). The evidence for the location of Marah seems
a bit stronger.
241Kaiser,"Exodus," p. 385.
243Youngblood, pp. 74-75. See also Richard D. Patterson, "The Imagery of Clouds in the Scriptures,"
244Meyer, p. 158.
"Yahweh's first intention was to give the appearance that

Israel, fearful of the main road, then fearful of the
wilderness, was starting first one way and then another, not
knowing where to turn and so a ready prey for recapture or
destruction. Yahweh's second intention was to lure the
Egyptians into a trap, first by making Pharaoh's mind
obstinate once again, and then by defeating Pharaoh and his
forces, who were certain to come down in vengeance upon
an apparently helpless and muddled Israel."246
The Hebrew phrase yam sup that Moses used to describe the body of water
through which the Israelites passed miraculously means "Red Sea," not
"Reed Sea."
"If there is anything that sophisticated students of the Bible

know, it is that yam sup, although traditionally translated
Red Sea, really means Reed Sea, and that it was in fact the
Reed Sea that the Israelites crossed on their way out of
Egypt.
"Well it doesn't and it wasn't and they're wrong!"247
In the article quoted above, the writer explained that the word sup did not
originate in the Egyptian language but in Hebrew. Many scholars have
claimed it came from an Egyptian root word meaning "reed." He showed
that it came from a Hebrew root word meaning "end." Yam is also a
Hebrew word that means "sea." The yam sup is then the sea at the end.
The ancients used the name yam sup to describe the body of water that lay
beyond the farthest lands known to them. It meant the sea at the end of the
world. It clearly refers to the Red Sea often in the Old Testament (Exod.
15:4; Num. 21:4; 33:8; Josh. 2:10; 4:23; 1 Kings 9:26; Jer. 49:21; et al.).
The Greeks later used the same term, translated into Greek, to refer to the
Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. The translation of yam sup as Reed
Sea is evidently both inaccurate and misleading. It implies that the
Israelites simply crossed some shallow marsh when they left Egypt. Such
an interpretation lacks support in the inspired record of Israel's Exodus.248
"The Hebrew word sup, which corresponds closely to the

Egyptian tjuf ('papyrus'), refers to the reeds along the bank
of the Nile in Exodus 2:3 and to the seaweed in the
Mediterranean in Jonah 2:5 [HB 2:6]. Since there are a
series of lakes with abundant supplies of reeds and papyrus
north of the Red Sea (the Gulf of Suez)—such as Lake
246Durham, p. 187.
247Batto, p. 57.
248For a summary of views on the site of crossing, see Davis, pp. 168-71, or Hyatt, pp. 156-61.
Manzaleh and Lake Timsah—it is felt that one of these may

have been the 'Reed Sea' crossed by the Israelites."249
Moses recorded that God hardened Pharaoh's heart three times in this
chapter (vv. 4, 8, 17).
14:5-14 This is the first of Israel's many complaints against Moses and Yahweh
that Moses recorded in Scripture. It is the first of ten that culminated in
God's judgment of them at Kadesh Barnea (v. 11; Num. 14:22-23).
"This is the first example in the Old Testament of what

some scholars call 'holy war' or 'Yahweh war.' That is, this
war was undertaken by the Lord in defense of His own
reputation, promises, and self-interest (14:10-14; see also,
for example, 15:3; Deut. 1:30; 3:22; 20:4). It is to be
distinguished from 'ordinary' war that Israel might
undertake on her own (Num. 14:39-45)."250
14:15-25 The strong east wind that God sent (v. 21) recalls the wind from God that
swept over the face of the primeval waters in creation (Gen. 1:2). The
cloud became a source of light to the fleeing Israelites but darkness to the
pursuing Egyptians (vv. 19-20).
"Thus the double nature of the glory of God in salvation

and judgment, which later appears so frequently in
Scripture, could not have been more graphically
depicted."251
The angel switched from guiding to guarding the Israelites. The strong
east wind was another miracle like those that produced the plagues (v. 21;
cf. Ps. 77:16-19).
The two million Israelites could have passed through the sea in the time
the text says if they crossed in a wide column, perhaps a half-mile wide (v.
22). Some interpreters take the wall of water literally and others interpret
it figuratively.
"The metaphor [water like a wall] is no more to be taken

literally than when Ezra 9:9 says that God has given him a
'wall' (the same word) in Israel. It is a poetic metaphor to
explain why the Egyptian chariots could not sweep in to
right and left, and cut Israel off; they had to cross by the
same ford, directly behind the Israelites."252
249Wolf, p. 140. See also The New Bible Dictionary, 1962, s.v. "Red Sea," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.
250Merrill, in The Old . . ., p. 54.
252Cole, p. 121. Cf. Cassuto, pp. 167-69.
Nevertheless nothing in the text precludes a literal wall of water.253 This

seems to be the normal meaning of the text.
The text does not say that Pharaoh personally perished in the Red Sea (cf.
vv. 8, 10, 28; Ps. 106:7-12; 136:13-15).254
14:26-31 This miraculous deliverance produced fear (reverential trust) in Yahweh

among the Israelites (v. 31). Their confidence in Moses as well as in God
revived (cf. v. 10-12).
". . . whenever confidence in Moses increases, as here and

at Sinai, it is because of an action of Yahweh."255
"In view of the importance of the concept of faith and trust

in God for the writer of the Pentateuch, we should take a
long look at these verses. Just as Abraham believed God
and was counted righteous (Ge 15:6), so the Israelites,
under the leadership of Moses, also believed God. It seems
reasonable that the writer would have us conclude here in
the wilderness the people of God were living a righteous
life of faith, like Abraham. As they headed toward Sinai,
their trust was in the God of Abraham who had done great
deeds for them. It is only natural, and certainly in line with
the argument of the book, that they would break out into a
song of praise in the next chapter. On the negative side,
however, we should not lose sight of the fact that these
same people would forget only too quickly the great work
of God, make a golden calf (Ps 106:11-13), and thus
forsake the God about whom they were now singing."256
"Here [v. 31] the title of 'servant' is given to Moses. This is

the highest title a mortal can have in the OT—the 'servant
of Yahweh.' It signifies more than a believer; it describes
the individual as acting on behalf of God. For example,
when Moses stretched out his hand, God used it as his own
(Isa 63:12). Moses was God's personal representative."257
Many critics who have sought to explain away God's supernatural deliverance of Israel
have attacked this story. They have tried by various explanations to account for what
happened in natural terms exclusively. It is obvious from this chapter, however, that
regardless of where the crossing took place enough water was present to drown the army
253Davis, pp. 163-68, listed several ways of understanding what happened.

254Cole, p. 120. Cf. Jack Finegan, Let My People Go, p. 87; and Oliver Blosser, "Did the Pharaoh of the
Exodus Drown in the Red Sea?" It's About Time, (July 1987):11.
255Durham, p. 197.
of Egyptians that pursued Israel (v. 28). Immediately after this deliverance, the Israelites
regarded their salvation as supernatural (15:1-21), and they continued to do so for
generations (e.g., Ps. 106:7-8). The people of Canaan heard about and believed in this
miraculous deliverance, and it terrified them (Josh. 2:9-10; 9:9). The critic's problem may
be moral rather than intellectual. Some of the critics do not want to deal with the
implications of there being supernatural phenomena so they try to explain them away.
The text clearly presents a supernatural deliverance and even states that God acted as He
did to prove His supernatural power (vv. 4, 18).
"From the start of the exodus, it becomes clear, Yahweh has orchestrated
the entire sequence."258
The Lord finished the Israelites' liberation when He destroyed the Egyptian army. The
Israelites' slavery ended when they left Egypt, but they began to experience true freedom
after they crossed the Red Sea. The ten plagues had broken Pharaoh's hold on the
Israelites, but the Red Sea deliverance removed them from his reach forever. God
redeemed Israel on the Passover night, but He liberated Israel from slavery finally at the
Red Sea.259 In Christian experience these two works of God, redemption and liberation,
occur at the same time; they are two aspects of salvation.
3. Israel's song of deliverance 15:1-21

"The song is composed of three gradually increasing strophes, each of
which commences with the praise of Jehovah, and ends with a description
of the overthrow of the Egyptian host (vv. 2-5, 6-10, 11-18). The theme
announced in the introduction in v. 1 is thus treated in three different
ways; and whilst the omnipotence of God, displayed in the destruction of
the enemy, is the prominent topic in the first two strophes, the third
depicts with prophetic confidence the fruit of this glorious event in the
establishment of Israel, as a kingdom of Jehovah, in the promised
inheritance."260
Cassuto divided the strophes better, I believe, as vv. 1-6, vv. 7-11, and vv. 12-16, with an
epilogue in vv. 17-18.261 Kaiser proposed a similar division: 1b-5, 6-10, 11-16a, and 16b-
18.262
"It is not comparable to any one psalm, or song or hymn, or liturgy known
to us anywhere else in the OT or in ANE [ancient Near Eastern]
literature."263
258Durham, p. 198.
259See William D. Ramey, "The Great Escape (Exodus 14)," Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):33-
42.
261Cassuto, 173. See also Jasper J. Burden, "A Stylistic Analysis of Exodus 15:1-21: Theory and Practice,"
OTWSA 29 (1986):34-70.
262Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 393-96.
263Durham, p. 203.
"Yahweh is both the subject and the object of this psalm; the hymn is
about him and to him, both here and in the similar usage of Judg 5:3
. . ."264
It is interesting that Moses described the Egyptian pursuers as being thrown into the sea
(v. 4) and sinking like a stone (v. 5) and lead (v. 10). The same image describes Pharaoh's
earlier order to throw the Hebrew babies into the Nile River (1:22). God did to the
Egyptians what they had done to the Israelites.265
This hymn is a fitting climax to all God's miracles on behalf of the Israelites in leading
them out of Egypt.266 It is a song of praise that focuses on God Himself and attributes to
Him the superiority over all other gods that He had demonstrated (cf. v. 11). Undoubtedly
the Israelites sang this inspired song many times during their wilderness wanderings and
for generations from then on.267 The first part of the song (vv. 1-12) looks back on God's
destruction of the Egyptian soldiers, and the second part (vv. 13-18) predicts Israel's
entrance into the Promised Land. The divine name appears ten times.
"The event at the Red Sea, when the Egyptian army was drowned, was
celebrated as a great military victory achieved by God (Exodus 15:1-12).
It was that event, wherein a new dimension of the nature of God was
discovered by the Hebrews (the new understanding is expressed forcefully
by the explanation 'the Lord is a man in battle' [v. 3]), that opened to their
understanding the real possibility, if not necessity, of taking possession of
the promised land by means of military conquest (Exodus 15:13-18)."268
"The Exodus was one of the foundational events of Israel's religion. It
marked the liberation from Egyptian slavery, which in turn made possible
the formation of a relationship of covenant between Israel and God. And
nowhere is the Exodus given more powerful expression than in the Song
of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-18), a great victory hymn celebrating God's
triumph over Egypt at the sea. To this day, the ancient hymn continues to
be employed in the synagogue worship of Judaism. Its continued use
reflects the centrality of its theme, that of God's control over the forces of
both nature and history in the redemption of his people.
"When one reads the Song of the Sea, one immediately gains an
impression of the joy and exhilaration expressed by those who first used
its words in worship. But what is not immediately evident to the modern
reader is the subtle manner in which the poet has given force to his themes
by the adaptation of Canaanite mythology. Underlying the words and
structure of the Hebrew hymn are the motifs of the central mythology of
264Ibid.,p. 205.
266See Richard D. Patterson, "Victory at Sea: Prose and Poetry in Exodus 14—15," Bibliotheca Sacra
161:641 (January-March 2004):42-54.
267See Jeffrey E. MacLurg, "An Ode to Joy: The Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-21)," Exegesis and
Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):43-54.
268Peter Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament, p. 67.
Baal; only when one understands the fashion in which that mythology has
been transformed can one go on to perceive the extraordinary significance
which the poet attributed to the Exodus from Egypt.
"The poet has applied some of the most central motifs of the myth of Baal.
These motifs may be summarized in certain key terms: conflict, order,
kingship, and palace-construction. Taking the cycle of Baal texts as a
whole (see further Chapter IV), the narrative begins with conflict between
Baal and Yamm ('Sea'); Baal, representing order, is threatened by the
chaotic Yamm. Baal's conquest of Yamm marks one of the steps in the
process of creation; order is established, and chaos is subdued. Baal's
victory over Yamm is also the key to his kingship, and to symbolize the
order and consolidate the kingship, Baal initiates the construction of his
palace. And then, in the course of the myth, conflict breaks out again, this
time between Baal and Mot. Baal is eventually victorious in this conflict,
establishing once again his kingship and the rule of order. It is important
to note not only the centrality of these motifs in the Baal myth, but also
their significance; the motifs as a whole establish a cosmological
framework within which to interpret the Baal myth. It is, above all, a
cosmology, developing the origins and permanent establishment of order
in the world, as understood and believed by the Canaanites. Its central
celebration is that of creation.
"In the Song of the Sea, the poet has developed the same central motifs in
the structure of his song. The song begins with conflict between God and
Egypt (Exodus 15:1-12), but the way in which the poet has transformed
the ancient motifs is instructive. 'Sea' is no longer the adversary of order,
but God uses the sea (Hebrew yam) as an instrument in the conquest of
chaos. After the conquest, God is victorious and establishes order; his
kingship is proclaimed in a statement of his incomparability (verse 11).
But then the theme of conflict is resumed again, as future enemies are
anticipated (verses 14-16). They, too, would be conquered, and eventually
God's palace and throne would be established as a symbol of the order
achieved in his victory (verse 17). Finally, God's kingship would be
openly declared, as a consequence of his victories: 'the Lord shall reign for
ever and ever' (verse 18). The Hebrew expression for this statement of
kingship is yhwh ymlk, directly analogous to the celebration of Baal's
kingship in the Ugaritic texts: b'l ymlk.
"It is one thing to trace the motifs of the Baal myth in the Song of the Sea;
it is another to grasp their significance. The primary significance lies in
the cosmological meaning of the motifs; the Hebrew poet has taken the
symbolic language of creation and adapted it to give expression to his
understanding of the meaning of the Exodus. At one level, the Exodus was
simply the escape of Hebrews from Egyptian slavery; at another level, it
marked a new act of divine creation. Just as Genesis 1 celebrates the
creation of the world, so too Exodus 15 celebrates the creation of a new
people, Israel. And when one perceives this underlying significance of the
poetic language employed in the Song of the Sea, one is then in a position
to understand better another portion of the biblical text, namely, the
reasons given for the observation of the sabbath day."269
"Throughout the poem, however, the picture of God's great deeds

foreshadows most closely that of David, who defeated the chiefs of Edom,
Philistia, and Canaan and made Mount Zion the eternal home for the
Lord's sanctuary (v. 17)."270
"The poem of Exod 15 celebrates Yahweh present with his people and
doing for them as no other god anywhere and at any time can be present to
do. As such, it is a kind of summary of the theological base of the whole
of the Book of Exodus."271
Worship was the result of redemption. The people looked back at their deliverance and
forward to God's Promised Land. At this point their joy was due to their freedom from
slavery. However the desert lay ahead. The family of Abraham had become a nation, and
God was dwelling among them in the cloud. God's presence with the nation introduced
the need for holiness in Israel. The emphasis on holiness begins with God's dwelling
among His people in the cloud. It increased when God descended on the tabernacle and
ark of the covenant.
The parallel that exists between Abraham's experiences and Israel's is also significant.
God first called Abram out of pagan Ur. Then He blessed him with a covenant after the
patriarch obeyed God and went where Yahweh led him. God did the same thing with
Israel. This similarity suggests that God's dealings with both Abram and Israel may be
programmatic and indicative of His method of dealing with His elect generally.
II. THE ADOPTION OF ISRAEL 15:22—40:38
The second major section of Exodus records the events associated with God's adoption of
Israel as His chosen people. Having redeemed Israel out of slavery in Egypt He now
made the nation His privileged son. Redemption is the end of one journey but the
beginning of another.
A. GOD'S PREPARATORY INSTRUCTION OF ISRAEL 15:22—18:27

The events in this section of the text record God's preparation of His people for the
revelation of His gracious will for them at Mt. Sinai.
269Idem, Ugarit and the Old Testament, pp. 88-89. See also Frank M. Cross Jr., "The Song of the Sea and
Canaanite Myth," in God and Christ: Existence and Province, pp. 1-25.
271Durham, p. 210.
1. Events in the wilderness of Shur 15:22-27

15:22-26 The wilderness of Shur was a section of semi-desert to the east of Egypt's
border. It occupied the northwestern part of the Sinai Peninsula, and it
separated Egypt from Palestine (v. 22).
". . . wilderness does not imply a waste of sand, but a broad
open expanse, which affords pasture enough for a nomad
tribe wandering with their flocks. Waste and desolate so far
as human habitations are concerned, the traveller [sic] will
only encounter a few Bedouins. But everywhere the earth is
clothed with a thin vegetation, scorched in summer
drought, but brightening up, as at the kiss of the Creator,
into fair and beautiful pastures, at the rainy season and in
the neighbourhood of a spring."272
This area has not changed much over the years.
Moses had asked Pharaoh's permission for the Israelites to go a three-day
journey into the wilderness (3:18; 5:3; 8:27), but now, having gone three
days, the people found no water suitable for drinking. The water at the
oasis later called Marah was brackish (vv. 23-24). This condition made the
people complain again (cf. 14:11-12). In three days they had forgotten
God's miracles at the Red Sea, much less the plagues. This should prove
that miracles do not result in great faith. Rather great faith comes from a
settled conviction that God is trustworthy.
"When the supply fails, our faith is soon gone."273
". . . we may in our journey have reached the pools that
promised us satisfaction, only to find them brackish. That
marriage, that friendship, that new home, that partnership,
that fresh avenue of pleasure, which promised so well turns
out to be absolutely disappointing. Who has not muttered
'Marah' over some desert well which he strained every
nerve to reach, but when reached, it disappointed him!"274
Some commentators have seen the tree cast into the water as a type of the
cross of Christ or Christ Himself that, applied to the bitter experiences of
life, makes them sweet. What is definitely clear is that by using God's
specified means and obeying His word the Israelites learned that God
would heal them (v. 25). Throwing the wood into the water did not
magically change it. This was a symbolic act, similar to Moses lifting his
staff over the sea (14:16). God changed the water. He is able to turn bitter
water into sweet water for His people.
272Meyer, p. 178.
273MartinLuther, quoted by Keil and Delitzsch, 2:58.
274Meyer, p. 181.
The "statute and regulation" that God made for Israel were that He would
deliver them from all their troubles. Therefore they could always count on
His help. God's test involved seeing whether they would rely on Him or
not (cf. James 1).
The words of God in verse 26 explain the statute and regulation just given.
The Israelites would not suffer the diseases God had sent on the Egyptians
(i.e., experience His discipline) if they obeyed His word as they had just
done. They had just cast the tree into the pool.
God was teaching His people that He was responsible for their physical as
well as their spiritual wellbeing. While doctors diagnose and prescribe,
only God can heal.275
"We do not find Him [God] giving Himself a new name at
Elim, but at Marah. The happy experiences of life fail to
reveal all the new truth and blessing that await us in God
[cf. Gen. 15:1; Exod. 17:15]."276
This is one of the verses in Scripture that advocates of the "prosperity
gospel" like. They use it to prove their contention that it is never God's
will for anyone to be sick (along with 23:25; Ps. 103:3; Prov. 4:20-22; Isa.
33:24; Jer. 30:17; Matt. 4:23; 10:1; Mark 16:16-18; Luke 6:17-19; Acts
5:16 and 10:38). One advocate of this position wrote as follows.
"Don't ever tell anyone sickness is the will of God for us. It
isn't! Healing and health are the will of God for mankind. If
sickness were the will of God, heaven would be filled with
sickness and disease."277
15:27 At Elim Israel learned something else about God. Not only would He
deliver them (v. 3) and heal them (v. 26), but He would also provide
refreshing drink and nourishing food for them as their Shepherd (cf. Ps.
23:2).
A method of God's dealing with the Israelites as His people that He frequently employed
stands out clearly in these incidents. God did not lead the Israelites around every
difficulty. Instead He led them into many difficulties, but He also provided deliverance
for them in their difficulties. This caused the Israelites to learn to look to Him for the
supply of their needs. He still deals with His children the same way.278
275See Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet, "Moses and Preventive Medicine," Bibliotheca Sacra
147:587 (July-September):285.
276Meyer, pp. 183-84.
277Kenneth Hagin, Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness and Death, p. 16. For a critique of this view, see Ken
L. Sarles, "A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel," Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-
December 1986):329-52.
278See Allen P. Ross, "When God Gives His People Bitter Water (Exodus 15:22-27)," Exegesis and
Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):55-66.
2. Quails and manna in the wilderness of Sin ch. 16
This chapter records another crisis in the experience of the Israelites as they journeyed
from Goshen to Mt. Sinai that God permitted and used to teach them important lessons.
16:1-3 The wilderness of Sin evidently lay in the southwestern part of the Sinai
peninsula (v. 1). Its name relates to Sinai, the name of the mountain range
located on its eastern edge. Aharoni believed that Paran was the original
name of the entire Sinai Peninsula.279
This was Israel's third occasion of grumbling (v. 2; cf. 14:11-12; 15:24).
The reason this time was not fear of the Egyptian army or lack of water
but lack of food (v. 3).
"A pattern is thus established here that continues

throughout the narratives of Israel's sojourn in the
wilderness. As the people's trust in the Lord and in Moses
waned in the wilderness, the need grew for stricter
lessons."280
16:4-12 The manifestation of God's glory was His regular provision of manna that
began the next day and continued for 40 years (v. 7). The glory of the
Lord here was the evidence of His presence in the cloudy pillar (v. 10).
This was probably a flash of light and possibly thunder, both of which
later emanated from the cloud over Mt. Sinai (cf. 19:18).
16:13-21 "These [quail still] fly in such dense masses that the Arab
boys often kill two or three at a time, by merely striking at
them with a stick as they fly. . . . But in spring the quails
also come northwards in immense masses from the interior
of Africa, and return in autumn, when they sometimes
arrive so exhausted, that they can be caught with the hand.
. . ."281
Egyptian art pictures people catching the birds in hand nets.282
The Hebrew word man, translated into Greek manna and transliterated
from Greek into the English word "manna," is an interrogative particle that
means "What?" The Greek word manna means "grain" or "bread." From
this has come the idea that the manna was similar to bread. An omer is
about two quarts dry measure (v. 16).
279Y.Aharoni, "Kadesh-Barnea and Mount Sinai," in God's Wilderness: Discoveries in Sinai, pp. 165-70.
282Hannah, p. 134.
Jesus Christ compared Himself to the manna (John 6:33, 47-51, 53-58). It
is a type (a divinely intended illustration) of Christ. Our Lord gave
Himself unreservedly, but each Christian has no more of Him
experientially than we appropriate by faith. Manna also represents Christ
in His humiliation giving His flesh so we might have life (John 6:49-51).
To meditate on Him is to feed on the true manna (John 6:38-40).
Students of Exodus have explained verse 18 in various ways. Some old

Jewish commentators said it describes what happened when each family
had finished collecting the manna and had gathered in their tent to pool
their individual amounts. Then they discovered that they had collected just
the right quantity for their needs. Some Christian commentators have
suggested that the Israelites gathered all the manna each day in one central
place and from there each family took as needed. There was always
enough for everyone. The former explanation seems to fit the context
better.
16:22-30 The Israelites had not observed the Sabbath or a day of rest until now (v.
23). This is probably one reason they did not immediately observe it
faithfully as a special day. As slaves in Egypt they probably worked seven
days a week. However, God was blessing them with a day of rest and
preparing them for the giving of the fourth commandment (20:8-11). This
is the first reference to the Sabbath as such in Scripture.
16:31-36 Evangelical commentators generally have felt that the manna was a
substance unique from any other edible food (v. 31). Some interpreters
believe it was the sap-like secretion of the tamarisk tree or the secretion of
certain insects common in the desert.283 In the latter case the miracle
would have been the timing with which God provided it and the
abundance of it. Normally this sap only flows in the summer months. If
this is the explanation, it was a miracle similar to the plagues, not totally
unknown phenomena but divinely scheduled and reinforced. Even though
there are similarities between these secretions and the manna, the
differences are more numerous and point to a unique provision.284
The "testimony" was the tables of the Mosaic Law that Aaron later kept in
the ark of the covenant (cf. 25:16). Moses told Aaron to preserve a pot of
manna before the Lord's presence (vv. 33-34; cf. Num. 17:10-11).285
These physical objects memorialized God's faithful provision of both
spiritual and physical foods (cf. Deut. 8:3).
The Israelites were not completely separate from other people during their years in the
wilderness. As they traveled the caravan routes they would meet travelers and settlements
283E.g.,F. S. Bodenheimer, "The Manna of Sinai," Biblical Archaeologist 10:1 (February 1947):2-6.
284Cf.Ellison, pp. 89-90; and Davis, pp. 181-83.
285See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 274-75.
of tribes from time to time. They evidently traded with these people (cf. Deut. 2:6-7).
Consequently their total diet was not just manna, milk, and a little meat, though manna
was one of their staple commodities.286
God sought to impress major lessons on His people through the events recorded in this
chapter. These included His ability and willingness to provide regularly for their daily
needs and His desire that they experience His blessing. He gave them Sabbath rest to
refresh and strengthen their spirits as well as ample, palatable food for their bodies:
manna in the mornings and quail in the evenings.
3. The lack of water at Rephidim 17:1-7

Again the Israelites complained because there was no water to drink when they camped at
Rephidim (cf. 15:24). At Marah there was bad water, but now there was none.
". . . the supreme calamity of desert travellers [sic] befell them—complete
lack of water."287
Rephidim was near the wilderness of Sinai (v. 1; cf. 19:2; Num. 33:15) and the Horeb
(Sinai) range of mountains (v. 6).
The Israelites' grumbling demonstrated lack of faith, since God had promised to supply
their needs (v. 2). They wanted Him to act as they dictated rather than waiting for Him to
provide as He had promised. This was how they tested or challenged the Lord (cf. 1 Cor.
10:10). It was proper for God to test them (15:25; 16:4), but it was improper for them to
test Him in the sense of trying His patience.
"One of Moses' most characteristic and praiseworthy traits was that he
took his difficulties to the Lord (v. 4; 15:25; 32:30; 33:8; Num 11:2, 11;
12:13; 14:13-19 et al.)."288
By using his staff (v. 5) Moses proved that God was still enabling him to perform
miracles as he had done in Egypt. He still had divine regal authority, and the power of
God was still with him. The elders apparently accompanied Moses as representatives of
the people since the whole nation could not get close enough to witness the miracle.
Horeb may refer to the mountain range at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula (v. 6; cf.
Deut. 1:2; 1 Kings 19:8) also called Sinai. This is the traditional site, but I question it (cf.
Deut. 33:2; Gal. 4:25). Wherever the Horeb range may have been, Moses struck the rock
somewhere near these mountains.289
"Massah" means "testing" or "proof," and "Meribah" means "murmuring,"
"dissatisfaction," or "contention" (v. 7). Except for Joshua 9:18 and Psalm 59:15, all the
286See Itzhaq Beit-Arieh, "Fifteen Years in Sinai," Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-August
1984):28-54.
287Cassuto, p. 201.
289See Aviram Perevolotsky and Israel Finkelstein, "The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological
Perspective," Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):26-41.
other references to grumbling in the Old Testament occur in six chapters of the
Pentateuch: Exodus 15, 16, 17, and Numbers 14, 16, and 17.290 The first name
commemorated the Israelites' testing of God and the second name their quarreling with
Moses. They failed to believe that the Lord was among them as He had promised He
would be.
"In our own time the same demand is made, the same challenge repeated.
Men are not satisfied with the moral evidences of the Being and
providence of God, they point to the physical evils around, the hunger and
thirst, the poverty and misery, the pollution and self-will of our times,
crying—If there be a God, why does He permit these things? Why does
He allow suffering and sorrow? Why does He not interpose? And then,
when the heavens are still silent, they infer that there is no God, that the
sky is an empty eye-socket, and that there is nothing better than to eat and
drink, because death is an eternal sleep."291
God had assured the Israelites in Egypt that He would bring them into the Promised Land
(3:8, 17; 13:5, 11). Consequently all their grumbling demonstrated a lack of faith. This
second instance of complaining about lack of water was more serious than the first
because God had provided good water for them earlier in the desert (15:25).
4. The hostility of the Amalekites 17:8-16

Whereas the Israelites had feared the possibility of having to battle the Egyptians (14:10),
they now did engage in battle with the Amalekites.
"The primary function of this section in its present location is the

demonstration of yet another proof and benefit of Yahweh's Presence with
Israel. The occasion for the demonstration this time is an attack from the
outside instead of an internal complaint. The result, however, is once again
an undeniable supernatural intervention of Yahweh. . . . Yahweh is
present, when the need arises, to fight alongside and even on behalf of his
people."292
17:8-13 Moses used "Amalek" to represent the Amalekites, as he often used

"Israel" for the Israelites (v. 8). The Amalekites were a tribe of Semites.
They had descended from one of Esau's grandsons (Gen. 36:12) and had
settled in the part of Sinai the Israelites now occupied. They also inhabited
an area in southern Canaan (cf. Gen. 14:7). They evidently opposed Israel
in battle because they felt Israel was a threat to their security.
This is the first biblical reference to Joshua (v. 9). Moses selected him to
lead Israel's warriors. Moses' staff was the means God used to accomplish
290Kaiser,
p. 398.
291Meyer,p. 196.
292Durham, p. 234.
miracles for Israel and to identify those miracles as coming from Himself
(cf. v. 5, et al.).
Hur was the son of Caleb (v. 10; 1 Chron. 2:19; not the Caleb of later fame
in Numbers and Joshua) and possibly the grandfather of Bezalel, the
architect of the tabernacle (31:2, et al.). Josephus said he was the husband
of Miriam.293 He was an important man in Israel (cf. 24:14).
"Moses went to the top of the hill that he might see the
battle from thence. He took Aaron and Hur with him, not as
adjutants to convey his orders to Joshua and the army
engaged, but to support him in his own part in connection
with the conflict. This was to hold up his hand with the
staff of God in it. To understand the meaning of this sign, it
must be borne in mind that, although ver. 11 merely speaks
of the raising and dropping of the hand (in the singular),
yet, according to ver. 12, both hands were supported by
Aaron and Hur, who stood one on either side, so that Moses
did not hold up his hands alternately, but grasped the staff
with both his hands, and held it up with the two."294
"Moses lifted his hands, in symbol of the power of Yahweh

upon the fighting men of Israel, surely, but in some
miraculous way Moses' upraised hands became also
conductors of that power."295
Moses' actions suggest that he was engaging in intercessory prayer, though

reference to prayer is absent in the text. The emphasis is on the rod that
Moses held in his hand, the instrument of God's power.
"The lifting up of the hands has been regarded almost with

unvarying unanimity by Targumists, Rabbins, Fathers,
Reformers, and nearly all the more modern commentators,
as the sign or attitude of prayer. . . . The lifting up of the
staff secured to the warriors the strength needed to obtain
the victory, from the fact that by means of the staff Moses
brought down this strength from above, i.e., from the
Almighty God in heaven; not indeed by a merely spiritless
and unthinking elevation of the staff, but by the power of
his prayer, which was embodied in the lifting up of his
hands with the staff, and was so far strengthened thereby,
that God had chosen and already employed this staff as the
medium of the saving manifestation of His almighty power.
293Josephus,3:2:4.
295Durham, p. 236.
There is no other way in which we can explain the effect

produced upon the battle by the raising and dropping . . . of
the staff in his hands. . . . God had not promised him
miraculous help for the conflict with the Amalekites, and
for this reason he lifted up his hands with the staff in prayer
to God, that he might thereby secure the assistance of
Jehovah for His struggling people. At length he became
exhausted, and with the falling of his hands and the staff he
held, the flow of divine power ceased, so that it was
necessary to support his arms, that they might be kept
firmly directed upwards . . . until the enemy was entirely
subdued."296
"The significance of this is that Israel's strength lay only in
a continuous appeal to the Lord's power and a continuous
remembrance of what He had already done for them . . ."297
"Why do you fail in your Christian life? Because you have
ceased to pray! Why does that young Christian prevail? Ah,
in the first place, he prays for himself; but also, there are
those in distant places, mothers, sisters, grandparents, who
would think that they sinned, if they ceased to pray for him,
and they will not fail to lift up their hands for him until the
going down of the sun of their lives!"298
This battle was more important than may appear on the surface.
"As the heathen world was now commencing its conflict
with the people of God in the persons of the Amalekites,
and the prototype of the heathen world, with its hostility to
God, was opposing the nation of the Lord, that had been
redeemed from the bondage of Egypt and was on its way to
Canaan, to contest its entrance into the promised
inheritance; so the battle which Israel fought with this foe
possessed a typical significance in relation to all the future
history of Israel. It could not conquer by the sword alone,
but could only gain the victory by the power of God,
coming down from on high, and obtained through prayer
and those means of grace with which it had been
entrusted."299
What was the immediate significance of this battle for Israel? Israel
learned that God would give them victory over their enemies as they relied
on Him.

297Gispen, p. 169.
298Meyer, p. 202.
299Keil and Delitzsch, 2:81. Cf. Zech. 4:6; John 15:5.
"Jehovah used the attack of Amalek on Israel, at the very

beginning of their national history, to demonstrate to His
chosen people the potency of intercession. The event
reveals a mighty means of strength and victory which God
has graciously afforded His people of all ages."300
17:14-16 This is the first of five instances in the Pentateuch where we read that
Moses wrote down something at the Lord's command (cf. 24:4, 7; 34:27;
Num. 33:1-2; Deut. 31:9, 24).301 Clearly Moses could write, which some
critics of the Bible have questioned.
God promised the eventual destruction of the Amalekites to strengthen

Joshua's faith in God's help against all Israel's enemies (v. 14). Later God
commanded him to exterminate the Amalekites after he had conquered
Canaan (Deut. 25:19). The Bible mentions the Amalekites for the last time
in 1 Chronicles 4:43 when a remnant of them perished in Hezekiah's day.
Some commentators have identified Haman, called an Agagite in the Book
of Esther, with the Amalekites.302 Agag was evidently an Amalekite name
or title (cf. 1 Sam. 15:32-33). There is serious question, however, that
Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites, as some of the better
commentaries on Esther point out.
The altar commemorated God's victory and self-revelation as the One who
would provide victory for Israel against her enemies (v. 15). The banner
was a flag that the victor could raise over his defeated foe.
"The sight of Moses so blessing Israel and judging Amalek

would symbolize Yahweh, by whom all blessing and all
cursing were believed to be empowered; thus the altar was
named not 'Moses is my standard,' or 'The staff of Elohim
is my standard,' but 'Yahweh is my standard.'"303
God set Himself against the Amalekites because they set themselves
against His people and His purposes through them (v. 16).304
"The battle between Yahweh and Amalek will continue

across the generations because the Amalekites have raised a
hand against Yahweh's throne, that is, they have challenged
his sovereignty by attacking his people."305
300D. Edmond Hiebert, Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession, p. 57. All of chapter 5 of this
excellent book deals with Exodus 17:8-16.
302E.g., Hyatt, p. 183.
303Durham, p. 237.
304On God's use of war against His enemies, see Craigie, The Problem . . ., and John Wenham, The
Goodness of God.
305Durham, p. 237.
"In Amalek the heathen world commenced that conflict

with the people of God, which, while it aims at their
destruction, can only be terminated by the complete
annihilation of the ungodly powers of the world. . . .
Whereas he [Moses] had performed all the miracles in
Egypt and on the journey by stretching out his staff, on this
occasion he directed his servant Joshua to choose men for
the war, and to fight the battle with the sword. He himself
went with Aaron and Hur to the summit of a hill to hold up
the staff of God in his hands, that he might procure success
to the warriors through the spiritual weapons of prayer."306
"I am convinced beyond any doubt that virtually all

advances for Christ come because of believers who
understand and practice prayer."307
In all the crises the Israelites had faced since they left Egypt, God was teaching them to
look to Him. They should do so for deliverance from their enemies (at the Red Sea), for
health and healing (at Marah), and for food and guidance (in the wilderness of Sin). They
should also do so for water and refreshment (at Massah-Meribah) and for victory over
their enemies in battle (at Rephidim). He was teaching them how dependent they were on
Him and that they should turn to Him in any and every need (cf. John 15:5).
Once again the Lord provided for His people, continued to provide for them, and proved
His presence again to Israel and to Israel's enemies.308
"The present narrative in Exodus 17 appears to have been shaped by its

relationship to the events recorded in Numbers 21:1-3, the destruction of
Arad. The two narratives are conspicuously similar. Here in Exodus 17,
the people murmured over lack of water and Moses gave them water from
the rock (vv. 1-7). They were attacked by the Amalekites but went on to
defeat them miraculously while Moses held up his hands (in prayer?). So
also in the narrative in Numbers 21, after an account of Israel's murmuring
and of getting water from the rock (20:1-13), Israel was attacked but
miraculously went on to defeat the Canaanites because of Israel's vow,
which the narrative gives in the form of a prayer (21:1-3).
"The parallels between the two narratives suggest an intentional

identification of the Amalekites in the Exodus narratives and the
Canaanites in Numbers 21:1-3."309

307R. Kent Hughes, Living on the Cutting Edge, p.11.
308Durham, p. 238.
Sailhamer charted the parallel literary structures of the two incidents similar to what
follows.
A Manna and quail (Exod. 16:4-34)

B 40 years (Exod. 16:35)
C Water from the rock (Exod. 17:1-7)
D Joshua, the next leader (Exod. 17:8-13)
E Battle with the Amalekites (Exod. 17:14-16)
A' Manna and quail (Num. 11:4-34)

B' 40 years (Num. 14:21-22)
C' Water from the rock (Num. 20:1-12)
D' Eleazar, the next priest (Num. 20:23-29)
E' Battle with the Canaanites (Num. 21:1-
16)310
5. The friendliness of Jethro the Midianite ch. 18
As a Midianite, Jethro was a descendant of Abraham, as was Amalek. Both were blood
relatives of the Israelites. Nevertheless the attitudes of the Amalekites and Jethro were
very different, though Midian as a nation was hostile to Israel. Set next to each other in
the text as they are, the experiences of Israel with Amalek and with Jethro illustrate two
different attitudes that others held toward Israel. These differences have characterized the
attitudes of outsiders toward God's elect throughout history.311
18:1-12 The names of Moses' sons (vv. 3-4) reflect his personal experiences in the
providence of God. However, not all biblical names carry such
significance.
"It is a very precarious procedure to attempt to analyze the

character or disposition of an Old Testament character on
the basis of the etymology of his name alone."312
Many names were significant (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, etc.),
but not all were.
The mount of God (v. 5) is the mountain where God revealed Himself and
His law to Israel, Mt. Sinai. The wilderness was the wilderness near Sinai.
310Adapted from ibid., p. 278.

311Cf.Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 408.
312Davis, p. 187.
"Moses' summary [vv. 8-10] is a proof-of-Presence

summary, a confession of Yahweh's powerful protection of
and provision for Israel."313
Jethro acknowledged the sovereignty of God (v. 11). This does not prove
he was a monotheist, though he could have been. Jethro was a God-fearing
man, evidently part of a believing minority in Midian. He gave evidence
of his faith by offering a burnt offering and by making sacrifices to
Yahweh (v. 12). The meal that Moses, Aaron, and the Israelite elders ate
with Jethro was the sacrificial meal just mentioned. Eating together in the
ancient Near East was a solemn occasion because it constituted the
establishment of an alliance between the parties involved. That is
undoubtedly what it involved here. The fact that Aaron and all the elders
of Israel were also present demonstrated its importance.
18:13-23 Moses experienced a crisis of overwork (cf. Acts 6:1-7). Previously he had
had to cope with a lack of food and a lack of water. This section explains
how he overcame the present crisis. It also explains the beginning of
Israel's legal system. Here we see how the requirements and instructions
of the Mosaic Covenant became accessible to the ordinary Israelite and
applicable to the problems that arose as the Israelites oriented their lives to
that code.314
Clearly Israel already at this time had a body of revealed law (v. 16; cf.
15:26). I shall say more about older ancient Near Eastern law codes in my
comments on 21:1—23:19. God greatly expanded this with the giving of
the Mosaic Covenant.
Evidently the people were becoming unruly because Moses was not
dispensing justice quickly (v. 23). Jethro's counsel was wise and practical,
and he presented it subject to the will of God (v. 23). Moses may not have
realized the seriousness of the problem he faced. He seems to have been a
gifted administrator who would not have consciously let Israel's social
welfare deteriorate. However, his efficiency expert father-in-law pointed
out how he could manage his time better.
Notice the importance of modeling integrity in verse 21. Integrity means

matching walk with talk, practicing what one preaches. This has always
been an important qualification for leaders.
"Mr. [Dwight L.] Moody said shrewdly: It is better to set a

hundred men to work, than do the work of a hundred men.
You do a service to a man when you evoke his latent
313Durham, p. 244.
314Ibid., p. 248.
faculty. It is no kindness to others or service to God to do

more than your share in the sacred duties of Church life."315
18:24-27 Moses allowed the people to nominate wise, respected men from their
tribes whom he appointed as judges (v. 25; cf. Deut. 1:12-18). These men
handled the routine disputes of the Israelites, and this kept Moses free to
resolve the major problems.
Jethro returned to his native land (v. 27), but he visited Moses and his
daughter and grandchildren again (cf. Num. 10:29), perhaps often during
the following 40 years.
"In times of great crises God always provided men to lead
the way to deliverance. Moses is an eloquent example of
this very fact. The hand of God providentially prepared this
man for this very moment. He was cognizant of Egyptian
manners and was therefore able to articulate demands
before the King of Egypt. Moses had been trained in
military matters and was therefore capable of organizing
this large mass of people for movement across the deserts.
His training in Egypt had given him the ability to write and
therefore provided a means by which these accounts would
be recorded for eternity. Forty years of desert experience
had given Moses the know-how of travel in these areas as
well as the kind of preparation that would be needed to
survive the desert heat. All of this a mere accident of
history? No indeed. The history before us is a supreme
example of God's sovereign ability to accomplish His
purposes for His people. Those who belong to Him have
every reason to be confident that that which God has
promised He will perform."316
"The present narrative has many parallels with the accounts in Genesis 14
and 15. Just as Melchizedek the priest of Salem (salem) met Abraham
bearing gifts as he returned from the battle with Amraphel (Ge 14:18-20),
so Jethro the Midianite priest came out with Moses' wife and sons to offer
peace (salom, 18:7; NIV 'they greeted each other') as he returned from the
battle with the Amalekites. . . . The purpose of these parallels appears to
be to cast Jethro as another Melchizedek, the paradigm of the righteous
Gentile. It is important that Jethro have such credentials because he plays
a major role in this chapter, instructing Moses, the lawgiver himself, how
to carry out the administration of God's Law to Israel. Thus, just as
Abraham was met by Melchizedek the priest (Ge 14) before God made a
covenant with him in Genesis 15, so Moses is met by Jethro the priest (Ex
18) before God makes a covenant with him at Sinai (Ex 19)."317
315Meyer, p. 210.
316Davis,pp. 189-90.
MELCHIZEDEK (GEN. 14:17-24) JETHRO (EXOD. 18:1-27)

He was a Gentile priest of Salem (Gen. He was a Gentile priest of Midian (Exod.
14:18). 18:1).
He met Abraham bearing gifts as Abraham He met Moses as Moses returned from
returned from defeating the Mesopota- defeating the Amalekites (Exod. 18:5).
mians (Gen. 14:18).
He brought gifts to Abraham (Gen. 14:18). He brought Moses' wife and sons to Moses
(Exod. 18:2-6).
He was king of peace (Heb. salem, Gen. He offered Moses peace (Heb. salom,
14:18). Exod. 18:7).
Abraham's heir was Eliezer ("God is my Moses' heir was Eliezer ("God is my help,"
help," Gen. 15:2). Exod. 18:4).
Melchizedek praised God for rescuing Jethro praised God for rescuing Moses
Abraham from the Amalekites (Gen. from the Egyptians (Exod. 18:10-11).
14:19-20).
He offered bread and wine (Gen. 14:18). He offered sacrifices and ate bread with
Moses (Exod. 18:12).
B. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT 19:1—24:11

The Lord had liberated Israel from bondage in Egypt, but now He adopted the nation into
a special relationship with Himself.
"Now begins the most sublime section in the whole Book. The theme of
this section is supremely significant, playing a role of decisive importance
in the history of Israel and of humanity as a whole."318
At Sinai, Israel received the law and the tabernacle. The law facilitated the obedience of
God's redeemed people, and the tabernacle facilitated their worship. Thus the law and the
tabernacle deal with the two major expressions of the faith of the people redeemed by the
grace and power of God: obedience and worship.
Here begins the fifth dispensation, the dispensation of the law. It ended with the death of
Christ, who alone fulfilled all its requirements and, as a second Moses, superceded it with
His own teaching. God gave the Israelites the law "because of [their] transgressions"
(Gal. 3:19), which we have seen they committed after their redemption. The law taught
the wayward Israelites, and teaches all readers of this history, the awesome holiness of
God (19:10-25) and the exceeding sinfulness of man (Rom. 7:13; 1 Tim. 1:8-10). It also
taught and teaches the necessity of obedience (Jer. 7:23-24), the universality of human
failure (Rom. 3:19-20, 23), and the marvel of God's grace that provided a way whereby
redeemed sinners could have ongoing relationship with God (Rom. 3:21-22).
318Cassuto, p. 223.
The law did not change the provisions or abrogate the promises that God gave in the
Abrahamic Covenant. God did not give it as a means of justification for unbelievers (Acts
15:10-11; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:3-9, 14, 17, 24-25) but as a means of sanctification, rules for
living, for a redeemed people. It clarified for them that purity and holiness should
characterize their lives as the people of God. It was "child training" through disciplinary
restriction and correction designed to prepare them for the coming of Christ when they as
a people would "come of age" (Deut. 6:24; Gal. 3:24, 26; 4:1-7; Titus 2:11-13). The
Israelites, however, misinterpreted the purpose of the law and sought to obtain
righteousness by their good deeds and ceremonial ordinances (Acts 15:1; Rom. 9:31—
10:3; 1 Tim. 1:8-10). Israel's history was one long record of violating the law, even to
rejecting their own Messiah whom Moses told them to heed (Deut. 18:15).
The Mosaic Covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic Covenant in the sense that it was
a significant, intimate agreement between God and Abraham's descendants. By observing
it the Israelites could achieve their purpose as a nation. This purpose was to experience
God's blessing and to be a blessing to all nations of the earth (Gen. 12:2). In contrast to
the Abrahamic Covenant, Israel had responsibilities to fulfill to obtain God's promised
blessings (v. 5). It was, therefore, a conditional covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant—as
well as the Davidic and New Covenants that contain expansions of the promises in the
Abrahamic Covenant—was unconditional.
A further contrast is this.
"Whereas the Sinaitic covenant was based on an already accomplished act
of grace and issued in stringent stipulations, the patriarchal covenant
rested only on the divine promise and demanded of the worshipper only
his trust (e.g., ch. 15:6)."319
"The covenant with Israel at Sinai is to bring Israel into a position of
mediatorial service."320
"The major difference between the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic
covenant is that the former was conditional and also was ad interim, that
is, it was a covenant for a limited period, beginning with Moses and
ending with Christ. . . .
"In contrast to the other covenants, the Mosaic covenant, though it had
provisions for grace and forgiveness, nevertheless builds on the idea that
obedience to God is necessary for blessing. While this to some extent is
true in every dispensation, the Mosaic covenant was basically a works
covenant rather than a grace covenant. The works principle, however, was
limited to the matter of blessing in this life and was not related at all to the
question of salvation for eternity."321
319Bright,pp. 91-92.
320Eugene H. Merrill, "The Mosaic Covenant: A Proposal for Its Theological Significance," Exegesis and
Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):29.
321John F. Walvoord, "The New Covenant," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 191-92.
The Mosaic Covenant is the heart of the Pentateuch.
"First, it should be pointed out that the most prominent event and the most
far-reaching theme in the Pentateuch, viewed entirely on its own, is the
covenant between Yahweh and Israel established at Mount Sinai. . . .
"1) The author of the Pentateuch wants to draw a connecting link between
God's original plan of blessing for mankind and his establishment of the
covenant with Israel at Sinai. Put simply, the author sees the covenant at
Sinai as God's plan to restore his blessing to mankind through the
descendants of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Exod 2:24).
"2) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that the Covenant at Sinai
failed to restore God's blessing to mankind because Israel failed to trust
God and obey his will.
"3) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that God's promise to
restore the blessing would ultimately succeed because God himself would
one day give to Israel a heart to trust and obey God (Deut 30:1-10)."322
The writer interrupted the narrative sections of Exodus with blocks of other explanatory,
qualifying, and cultic material in the chapters that follow.323
Narrative Other Narrative Other Narrative Other Narrative Other Narrative

19:1-3a 19:3b-9 19:10-19a 19:19b-25 20:1-21 20:22— 24:1-18 25-31 32-34
23:33
Another scholar observed the following chiastic structure in chapters 19—24.324
A Narrative: the covenant offered (19:3-25)

B Law: the Decalogue (20:1-17)
C Narrative: the people's fear (20:18-21)
B' Law: the Book of the Covenant (20:22—23:33)
A' Narrative: the covenant accepted (24:1-11)
1. Preparation for the Covenant ch. 19

Moses revealed God's purpose for giving the Mosaic Covenant in this chapter.
19:1-6 The Israelites arrived at the base of the mountain where God gave them
the law about three months after they had left Egypt, in May-June (v. 1).
The mountain in the Sinai range that most scholars have regarded as the
322John H. Sailhamer, "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1—2:4a," Trinity Journal 5 NS (Spring 1984):75, 76.
323Durham, p. 258.
324Joe M. Sprinkle, "Law and Narrative in Exodus 19—24," Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society, 47:2 (June 2004):242.
mountain peak referred to in this chapter stands in the southeastern part of

the Sinai Peninsula. Its name in Arabic is Jebel Musa, mountain of
Moses.325 There is a natural slope to the land to the southeast of this peak,
and another plain to the north, which would have afforded Israel a good
view of the mountain if the people camped there. However the location of
biblical Mt. Sinai continues to be uncertain. The nation stayed at Mt. Sinai
11 months (Num. 10:11). The record of their experiences here continues
through Numbers 10:10.
Many reliable scholars have considered verses 3-6 the very heart of the
Pentateuch because they contain the classic expression of the nature and
purpose of the theocratic covenant that God made with Israel, the Mosaic
Covenant.
God gave the Mosaic Law specifically "to the house of Jacob . . . the sons
of Israel" (v. 3).326
"The image of the eagle [v. 4] is based on the fact that the
eagle, when its offspring learns [sic] to fly, will catch them
on its wings when they fall."327
"Without doubt Exodus 19:4-6 is the most theologically

significant text in the book of Exodus, for it is the linchpin
between the patriarchal promises of the sonship of Israel
and the Sinaitic Covenant whereby Israel became the
servant nation of Yahweh."328
God's promise to Israel here (vv. 5-6) went beyond what He had promised
Abraham. If Israel would be obedient to God, He would do three things for
the nation (cf. Josh. 24:15).
1. Israel would become God's special treasure (v. 5). This means that
Israel would enjoy a unique relationship with God compared with
all other nations. This was not due to any special goodness in Israel
but strictly to the sovereign choice of God.
2. Israel would become a kingdom of priests (v. 6). This is the first
occurrence in Scripture of the word "kingdom" as referring to
God's rule through men on earth. A priest stands between God and
people. Israel could become a nation of mediators standing
325See Israel Finkelstein, "Raider of the Lost Mountain—An Israeli Looks at the Most Recent Attempt to
Locate Mt. Sinai," Biblical Archaeology Review 15:4 (July-August 1988):46-50.
326For an illustration of the confusion that failure to observe this fact can create in teaching on the
Christian's relationship to the Law, see Sakae Kubo, "Why then the Law?" Ministry (March 1980), pp. 12-
14.
327Gispen, p. 179.
328Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p. 32. Cf. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, pp. 80-81.
between God and the other nations, responsible for bringing them
to God and God to them. Israel would not be a kingdom run by
politicians depending on strength and wit but by priests depending
on faith in Yahweh: a servant nation rather than a ruling nation.329
3. Israel would become a holy nation (v. 6). "Holy" means set apart
and therefore different. The Israelites would become different from
other peoples because they would devote themselves to God and
separate from sin and defilement as they obeyed the law of God. In
these notes I have capitalized "Law" when referring to the
Pentateuch, the Law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments and
have used the lowercase "law" for all other references to law.
In short, Israel could have become a testimony to the whole world of how
glorious it can be to live under the government of God. The people
experienced these blessings only partially because their obedience was
partial. Israel's disobedience to the Mosaic Covenant did not invalidate
any of God's promises to Abraham, however. Those promises did not rest
on Israel's obedience, as these did (cf. Gen. 15:17-21 and Exod. 19:5-6).330
19:7-15 The reaction of the Israelites to God's promises was understandably

positive, and God approved it (Deut. 5:27-28). They wanted what God
offered them. However, they overestimated their own ability to keep the
covenant, and they underestimated God's standards for them. This twin
error is traceable to a failure to appreciate their own sinfulness and God's
holiness. The Mosaic Law would teach them to appreciate both more
realistically (cf. Deut. 5:29).
God designed the procedures He specified in verses 10-15 to help the

people realize the difference between their holy God and their sinful
selves. Notice that God separated Himself from the Israelites spatially and
temporally.
The temporary prohibition against normal sexual relations (v. 15) seems
intended to impress the importance of this occasion on the Israelites and to
help them concentrate on it. We should not infer from this command that
normal sexual relations are sinful (cf. Gen. 1:28; 9:1, 7). Abstention was
for ritual cleanness, not moral cleanness.
19:16-25 God again used the symbol of fire to reveal Himself on this mountain (3:2-
5). Fire is a symbol of His holiness that enlightens, purges, and refines.
The smoke and quaking that accompanied the fire further impressed this
awesome revelation on the people.
329Durham, p. 263.
330See Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church," in Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-15, for a
good discussion of Israel's national election and how this relates to the individual election of Israelites.
The priests referred to (vv. 22, 24) were evidently young men (first-born?)
that offered sacrifices before God appointed the Aaronic priests to this
service (cf. 24:5).
Comparative ancient Near Eastern studies have revealed that the covenant form and
terminology that God used to communicate His agreement with Israel were common in
Moses' day. There were two basic types of formal covenants in the ancient Near East:
parity (between equals) and suzerainty (between a sovereign and his subjects). The
Mosaic Covenant was a suzerainty treaty. Such agreements characteristically contained a
preamble (v. 3), historical prologue (v. 4), statement of general principles (v. 5a),
consequences of obedience (vv. 5b-6a), and consequences of disobedience (omitted
here). In 1977, Kenneth Kitchen wrote the following.
"Some forty different [suzerainty] treaties . . . are known to us, covering

seventeen centuries from the late third millennium BC well into the first
millennium BC, excluding broken fragments, and now additional ones still
to be published from Ebla."331
Thus the form in which God communicated His covenant to Moses and Israel was
undoubtedly familiar to them. It enabled them to perceive better the nature of the
relationship into which they were entering.332
The Mosaic Law consisted of three classes of requirements: those governing moral life
(the Ten Commandments), those governing religious life (the ceremonial ordinances),
and those governing civil life (the civil statutes). The commandments expressed the
righteous will of God (Exod. 20), the judgments governed Israel's social life (Exod.
21:1—24:11), and the ordinances determined Israel's religious life (Exod. 24:12—31:18).
God gave the whole Law specifically for the nation of Israel (v. 3). It is very important to
recognize how comprehensive the Mosaic Law was and not limit it to the Ten
Commandments. The rabbis, after Maimonides, counted 613 commands, 248 positive and
365 negative, in the law. Maimonides was a Jewish philosopher and exegete who lived in
the twelfth century A.D. and wrote Sepher Mitzvoth ("Book of the Commandments"), the
definitive Jewish list of laws in the Penteateuch.333
There were three categories of law in Israel.
1. Crimes were actions that the community prohibited under the will of God and
punished in its name. Murder (Exod. 21:12), adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22),
and the kidnapping of persons for sale outside Israel (Exod. 21:16) are examples
of crimes. These offenses resulted in the punishment of the guilty party by the
community as a community (Exod. 21:12-16).
331Kenneth Kitchen, The Bible In Its World, p. 79.

332See George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Near East; Meredith Kline, The Treaty
of the Great King; and F. C. Fensham, "Extra-biblical Material and the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament
with Special Reference to the Legal Material of the Covenant Code," OTWSA 20 & 21 (1977 & 78):53-65.
333For a summary of Maimonides' list, see the Appendix in Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 481-516.
2. Torts were civil wrongs that resulted in an action by the injured party against the
party who had wronged him. Assault (Exod. 21:18-27), the seduction of an
unmarried or betrothed girl (Exod. 22:16-17), and theft of animals or other
property (Exod. 22:1-4) are examples of torts. Conviction resulted in the guilty
party paying damages to the injured party (Exod. 21:18-27).
3. Family law did not involve the courts, but the head of the household administered
it in the home. Divorce (Deut. 24:1-4), the making of slavery permanent (Exod.
21:1-6), and adoption (cf. Gen. 15:2; 30:3; 48:5, 12; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7) are
examples. In these cases the head of the household acted unilaterally. He did not,
however, have the power of life or death.334
God gave the Mosaic Law to the Israelites for several purposes:
1. To reveal the holiness of God (1 Peter 1:15)

2. To reveal the sinfulness of man (Gal. 3:19)
3. To reveal the standard of holiness required of those in fellowship with God (Ps.
24:3-5)
4. To supervise physical, mental, and spiritual development of redeemed Israelites
until they should come to maturity in Christ (Gal. 3:24; Ps. 119:71-72)
5. To be the unifying principle that made the establishment of the nation possible
(Exod. 19:5-8; Deut. 5:27-28)
6. To separate Israel from the nations to become a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:5-6;
31:13)
7. To make provision for forgiveness of sins and restoration to fellowship (Lev. 1—
7)
8. To make provision for a redeemed people to worship by observing and
participating in the yearly festivals (Lev. 23)
9. To provide a test whether one was in the kingdom (theocracy) over which God
ruled (Deut. 28)
10. To reveal Jesus Christ.
J. Dwight Pentecost concluded his article on the purpose of the Law, from which I took
the preceding 10 points, by pointing out the following.
". . . there was in the Law that which was revelatory of the holiness of
God. . . ." There was also ". . . that in the Law which was regulatory."335
"It is extremely important to remember that the Law of Moses was given
to a redeemed people, not to redeem a people."336
334See Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law; and idem, "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-
Exilic Israel," Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973):349-361, for further discussion of these categories.
335J. Dwight Pentecost, "The Purpose of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):233.
See also idem, Thy Kingdom . . ., pp. 88-93.
336Ibid., p. 87. Cf. Johnson, p. 68.
". . . it is also possible that the Pentateuch has intentionally included this
selection of laws for another purpose, that is, to give the reader an
understanding of the nature of the Mosaic Law and God's purpose in
giving it to Israel. Thus it is possible to argue that the laws in the
Pentateuch are not there to tell the reader how to live but rather to tell the
reader how Moses was to live under the law.
"This understanding of the purpose of the laws in the Pentateuch is
supported by the observation that the collections of laws in the Pentateuch
appear to be incomplete and selective. The Pentateuch as such is not
designed as a source of legal action. That the laws in the Pentateuch are
incomplete is suggested by the fact that many aspects of ordinary
community life are not covered in these laws."337
A movement that has gained some followers, especially in the United States, is the
Christian Reconstruction movement, also known as the theonomy movement, and the
Chalcedon school. Its central thesis is that God intended the Mosaic Law to be normative
for all people for all time. Its advocates look forward to a day when Christians will
govern everyone using the Old Testament as the law book. Reconstructionism rests on
three foundational points: presuppositional apologetics, theonomy (lit. the rule of God),
and postmillennialism. The main flaw in this system, from my perspective, is failure to
distinguish God's purposes for Israel from His purposes for the church.338
2. The Ten Commandments 20:1-17

"We now reach the climax of the entire Book, the central and most exalted
theme, all that came before being, as it were, a preparation for it, and all
that follows, a result of, and supplement to it."339
There are two types of law in the Old Testament, and these existed commonly in the
ancient Near East. Apodictic laws are commands with the force of categorical
imperatives. They are positive or negative. The Ten Commandments are an example of
this type of law, which occurs almost exclusively in the Old Testament and rarely in other
ancient Near Eastern law codes. "Thou shalt . . ." and "Thou shalt not . . ." identify this
type of law. Casuistic laws are commands that depend on qualifying circumstances. They
are also positive or negative, and there are many examples in the Mosaic Law (e.g., 21:2-
11, et al.) as well as in other ancient Near Eastern law codes. This type of law is
identifiable by the "If . . . then . . ." construction.
337Sailhamer, "The Mosaic . . .," pp. 244, 245.

338For a popular introduction to this movement, see Rodney Clapp, "Democracy as Heresy," Christianity
Today (February 20, 1987), pp. 17-23. See also Robert Lightner, "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 143:570 (April-June 1986):134-45; and 143:571
(July-September 1986):228-45, for a scholarly dispensational critique; and Meredith Kline, "Comments on
an Old-New Error," Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89, for a scholarly reformed
evaluation of the movement. The essay by Douglas Chismar and David Raush, "Regarding Theonomy: An
Essay of Concern," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23, is also
helpful.
339Cassuto, p. 235.
Compared with other ancient Near Eastern codes (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi) the
Decalogue (Ten Commandments) is positive and concise. God allowed the Israelites
much freedom. There were comparatively few restrictions on their personal behavior (cf.
Gen. 1:29-30; 2:16-17).
"The Ten Commandments were unique in Old Testament times because

they possessed prohibitions in the second person singular and because they
stressed both man's exclusive worship of one God and man's honoring the
other person's body, rights, and possessions. Breaking these
commandments would result in spiritual confusion and in human
exploitation."340
The Ten Commandments use verbs, not nouns. Nouns leave room for debate, but verbs
do not. God gave His people ten commandments, not ten suggestions.
Though Moses did not mention it here, angels played some part in mediating the law
from God to the Israelites through him (cf. Deut. 33:2; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2).
Preface 20:1-2
These verses form a preamble and historical background to the Decalogue that follows.
The Israelites were to obey God on the double basis of who He is and what He had done
for them.
Most scholars have divided the Ten Commandments (cf. Deut. 5:6-18) into two groups
but in two different ways. The older Jewish method, called Philonic after the Jewish
scholar Philo, was to divide them in two groups of five commandments each. The Jews
believed that this is how God divided them on the two tablets of stone. The newer
Christian method, called Augustinian after the church father Augustine, divided them into
the first three and the last seven commandments. The basis for this division is subject
matter. The first three commands deal with man's relationship with God and the last
seven with his relationship with other people (cf. Matt. 22:36-40). Some scholars believe
that each tablet contained all ten commandments in keeping with the ancient Near
Eastern custom of making duplicate copies of covenant documents.341 This explanation
makes the most sense to me.
The first commandment 20:3
"The Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches follow Augustine in making

verses 2-6 the first commandment, and then dividing verse 17, on
covetousness, into two. Modern Judaism makes verse 2 the first
commandment and verses 3-6 the second. The earliest division, which can
340G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in its Cultural Environment, p. 158.

341Kline,Treaty of . . ., ch. 2: "The Two Tables of the Covenant," pp. 13-26; idem, "Deuteronomy," in The
Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 161; and Jack S. Deere, "Deuteronomy," in The Bible Knowledge
Commentery: Old Testament, p. 270.
be traced back at least as far as Josephus, in the first century A.D., takes
20:3 as the first command and 20:4-6 as the second. This division was
supported unanimously by the early church, and is held today by the
Eastern Orthodox and most Protestant churches."342
Some scholars have argued that the first commandment comprises verses 3-6, the second
verse 7, etc., and the tenth commandment begins, "You shall not covet your neighbor's
wife" in verse 17b.343 Most scholars do not accept this view.
This commandment was a call to monotheism and faithfulness to the Lord. Israel was to
have no other gods besides Yahweh. He was not just to be the first among several
(henotheism) but the only One (monotheism; cf. 1 Cor. 10:31; 1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 14:15;
James 2:19; 1 John 5:20-21).
"Yahweh had opened himself to a special relationship with Israel, but that
relationship could develop only if Israel committed themselves to Yahweh
alone. Yahweh had rescued them and freed them, delivered them and
guided them, then come to them. The next step, if there was to be a next
step, belonged to them. If they were to remain in his Presence, they were
not to have other gods."344
The second commandment 20:4-6

"As the first commandment forbids any association with other gods to
those who would be Yahweh's, the second commandment and the two that
follow it set special dimensions of their relationship with him."345
This command was a prohibition against making images or likenesses of Yahweh. God
did not forbid making pictures or images of other creatures. The rationale behind this
command is that any likeness of God demeans Him and retards rather than advances His
worship. Furthermore, ny making an image of a god people put themselves in a position
of sovereignty over the deity. God wanted His people to accept their place as the
creatures of the Creator. The Israelite who made an image of Yahweh would put himself
or herself in the position of creator and Yahweh in the place of created thing. Also he or
she would face temptation to confuse the image with God and worship it rather than Him.
The consequences of disobedience to this command would continue for a few

generations, as the later history of Israel illustrated. However obedience to it would result
in blessing for limitless generations (cf. Deut. 7:9-10).
"Yahweh's jealousy is a part of his holiness (Exod 34:14) and is demanded

by what he is. It is justified by the fact that it comes only upon those who,
having promised to have no God but him, have gone back on that promise.
342Johnson, p. 69.
343E.g., Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 284-85.
344Durham, p. 285.
345Ibid.
Those who do so show that they 'hate' him, that they hold him in
contempt: upon them in result must come a deserved judgment, across
four generations."346
"The use of images and the human control of the god that was a part of
their use would infringe on the freedom of Yahweh to manifest himself
when and how he sovereignly determined. By prohibiting the one means
by which the gods of the people around Israel supposedly manifested
themselves Israel was protected from the assimilation of foreign religious
values, and the prohibition of images played a significant role in the
successful survival of Israel's religion. It seems clear that the prohibition
of images both in practice and in its theological basis is but another
example of the fundamentally different religious value-system that
distinguished Israel from her ancient Near Eastern contemporaries."347
"Through sacrifice to the idol, large amounts of material productivity were

funneled into the control of the Canaanite priestly and royal classes. The
idol was therefore a kind of tax or tribute gathering device. In this context,
Israelite hostility to cultic images yields to a possible two-fold
interpretation. First, by repudiating the cultic image, Israel rid itself of an
important source of wealth for the ruling classes, thereby thwarting
possible internal programs seeking to reestablish political hierarchy.
Second, frontier Israel was insured that agricultural goods used in cultic
sacrifice would be circulated back into the producing community [cf.
Deut. 12:5-7; 26:12-15]. An imageless cult was one way of enhancing
political and economic self-sufficiency."348
The third commandment 20:7

Taking God's name in vain means using the name of God in a common way. The name of
God represents the person of God. The Israelites were to show respect for the person of
God by their use of His name. They were not to use it simply for emphasis or for any
unworthy objective in their speech (cf. Matt. 5:33-37; James 5:12).
"The third commandment is directed not toward Yahweh's protection, but

toward Israel's. Yahweh's name, specifically the tetragrammaton but in
principle all Yahweh's names and titles, must be honored, blessed, praised,
celebrated, invoked, pronounced, and so shared. To treat Yahweh's name
with disrespect is to treat his gift lightly, to underestimate his power, to
scorn his Presence, and to misrepresent to the family of humankind his
very nature as 'The One Who Always Is.'"349
346Ibid.,p. 287.
347Edward M. Curtis, "The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old Testament," Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 28:3 (September 1985):287.
348James M. Kennedy, "The Social Background of Early Israel's Rejection of Cultic Images: A Proposal,"
Biblical Theology Bulletin 17:4 (October 1987):138.
349Durham, p. 288.
The "tetragrammaton" refers to the four-letter name YHWH.
The fourth commandment 20:8-11
The Sabbath was the seventh day of the week, Saturday. This day was to be a day of rest
for Israel because God ceased from His creation activity on the seventh day (Gen. 2:3).
God blessed it and made it holy (v. 11) in that He made it different from the other days of
the week for Israel.
This is the only one of the Ten Commandments not reiterated for the church in the New
Testament. Traditionally the church has celebrated the first day of the week as a
memorial to Jesus Christ's resurrection, which event is the ground of our rest (Rom.
4:25).350
The fifth commandment 20:12
"The first four commandments set forth the principles guiding Israel's
relationship to Yahweh; and the last six commandments set forth the
principles guiding Israel's relationship with the covenant community, and
more broadly, with the human family. As the second, third, and fourth
commandments are in many ways extensions of the first commandment,
the first four commandments are the foundation for the final six
commandments. And all of the commandments, as principles governing
covenant relationships, are founded on the ultimate OT statement of
relationship, which stands as prologue to the ten commandments: 'I am
Yahweh, your God' . . . Because Yahweh is, and is Israel's God, Israel
both is and must become a certain and special people."351
All Israelites were to honor their parents because parents are God's representatives to
their children in God's administrative order. Thus the fifth commandment is as
foundational to commandments six through ten as the first commandment is to
commandments two through four. The Israelites were to honor God because He had
given them life, and they were to honor their parents because they were His instruments
in giving them life. The promise of long life in the Promised Land is a reminder that God
gave the command to Israelites. The Apostle Paul repeated this responsibility as binding
on the church in Ephesians 6:1-3 but changed the command to "obey," as well as the
promise (cf. Matt. 15:3-4; Col. 3:20).352
350See Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "The Sabbath Controversy," Biblical Research Monthly 49:4 (July-
August 1984):15-16; Gerhard Hasel, "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch," in The Sabbath in Scripture and
History, pp. 21-43; and Merrill F. Unger, "The Significance of the Sabbath," Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489
(January 1966):53-59.
351Durham, p. 290.
352See Maurice E. Wagner, "How to Honor Your Parents When They've Hurt You," Psychology for Living
28:6 (June 1986):12-14.
The sixth commandment 20:13

God did not forbid killing per se. He commanded capital punishment and some war. The
Hebrew word used here specifies murder, not just killing. The Israelites were to execute
murderers and others under the Mosaic Law. However, He prohibited taking a human life
without divine authorization. This included suicide (cf. John 3:15).353
The seventh commandment 20:14

Adultery is sexual intercourse when one or both partners are married (or engaged, under
Israelite law; cf. Deut. 22:23-29) to someone else. Adultery destroys marriage and the
home, the foundations of society (cf. Matt. 5:27-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-20). Adultery is an act,
not a state. People commit adultery; they do not live in adultery, except in the sense that
they may continually practice it.
The eighth commandment 20:15

Since stealing of any kind and under any circumstances was wrong, clearly God approved
of private ownership of goods in Israel. Israel was somewhat socialistic economically, but
it was not communistic (cf. Eph. 4:28).
The ninth commandment 20:16

Social order depends on truthful speech (cf. Lev. 19:11; Col. 3:9-10).
The tenth commandment 20:17

It is specifically what belongs to one's neighbor and is not for sale, contrasted with
something for sale, that is the focus of this command. A legitimate desire is not the same
as coveting, which is an obsessive desire. Coveting is a root attitude from which many
sins in word and deed against a neighbor spring (cf. Eph. 5:3). The five categories of the
most valuable possessions the neighbor could have represent all that he has.
". . . none of the Ten Commandments reappear in the New Testament for
this age of grace as Mosaic legislation. All of the moral principles of the
ten laws do reappear in the New Testament in a framework of grace."354
"The influence of the Ten Words on Western morality and law is beyond
calculation. They have come to be recognized as the basis of all public
morality."355
353See J. P. Morgan, "The Morality of Suicide: Issues and Options," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June
1991):214-30.
354Roy L. Aldrich, "The Mosaic Ten Commandments Compared to Their Restatements in the New
Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 118:471 (July 1961):257. I have added italicizing for emphasis. See also
Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 129:495 (July-September 1967):239-47, for an
excellent explanation of the Christian's relationship to the Ten Commandments. Mark Rooker, Leviticus,
pp. 67-77, also included a good discussion of the New Testament and the Law.
355Ramm, p. 127.
In view of this fact it is especially tragic that it is now illegal to post a copy of the Ten
Commandments in any American public school classroom.356 A fuller exposition of the
Ten Commandments follows in my notes on Deuteronomy 5.
3. The response of the Israelites 20:18-21
The rest of this section contains the record of the Israelites' reaction to the giving of the
Law and God's reason for giving it as He did. He wanted the people to reverence Him
and therefore not to sin (v. 20).
"It can be argued that in the present shape of the Pentateuch, the
Decalogue (Ex 20:1-17) is intended to be read as the content of what
Moses spoke to the people upon his return from the mountain in 19:25.
After the Decalogue, the narrative in 20:18-21 looks back once again to
the people's fear in 19:16-24. In retelling this incident, the second
narrative fills the important 'gaps' in our understanding of the first."357
Similarly Genesis 2 retells the story of creation in Genesis 1 to fill in important gaps.
"The Book of the Covenant begins technically with Exodus 20:22, having
been separated from the Decalogue by a brief narrative (vv. 18-21)
describing the people's response to the phenomena accompanying Moses'
encounter with Yahweh on Sinai (cf. 19:16-25). The technical term
'ordinances' (mispatim), which describes the specific stipulations of the
covenant, does not occur until 21:1, so 20:22-26 serves as an introduction
to the stipulation section. This introduction underlines Yahweh's
exclusivity, His self-revelation to His people, and His demand to be
worshiped wherever He localizes His name and in association with
appropriate altars."358
God evidently spoke the Ten Commandments in the hearing of all the Israelites (19:9;
20:19, 22) to cause them to fear Him (v. 20). The people were so awestruck by this
revelation that they asked Moses to relay God's words to them from then on (v. 20),
which he did (v. 21).
356See Joyce G. Baldwin, "The Role of the Ten Commandments," Vox Evangelica 13 (1983):7-18, for a
good synopsis of the role of the Decalogue as the Reformers and the Old Testament and New Testament
writers saw it. Childs' commentary deals with the Decalogue in more detail than most others on pp. 385-
439, as does Davis', pp. 196-210. Ezekiel Hopkins wrote a classic explanation of the Decalogue in 1701
from the Puritan viewpoint that has been reprinted: "Understanding the Ten Commandments," in Classical
Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 51-58. For a dispensational exposition of the Ten
Commandments, see Steve Minter, "Ten Timeless Words (Exodus 20:1-17)," Exegesis and Exposition 1:1
(Fall 1986):67-80. For argumentation for the Mosaic origin of the Decalogue as opposed to a later origin,
see Harold H. Rowley, "Moses and the Decalogue," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of the University
of Manchester 34:1 (September 1951):81-118.
357Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 56.
358Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p. 41.
"This verse [v. 20] contrasts two types of 'fear': tormenting fear (which
comes from conscious guilt or unwarranted alarm and leads to bondage) or
salutary fear (which promotes and demonstrates the presence of an attitude
of complete trust and belief in God; cf. the 'fear of the LORD God'
beginning in Gen 22:12). This second type of fear will keep us from
sinning and is at the heart of the OT's wisdom books (cf. Prov 1:7; Eccl
12:13 et al.)."359
"Whereas 19:16-24 looks at the people's fear from a divine perspective,

20:18-21 approaches it from the viewpoint of the people themselves. What
we learn from both narratives, therefore, is that there was a growing need
for a mediator and a priesthood in the Sinai covenant. Because of the
people's fear of God's presence, they are now standing 'afar off' (20:21).
Already, then, we can see the basis being laid within the narrative for the
need of the tabernacle (Ex 25—31). The people who are 'afar off' must be
brought near to God. This is the purpose of the instructions for the
tabernacle which follow this narrative."360
4. The stipulations of the Book of the Covenant 20:22—23:33

"It is worth noting that the stipulations are enfolded within matching
frames that stress the exclusivity of Yahweh (Ex. 20:22-23; cf. 23:24-25,
32-33), His presence in specified places (20:24; cf. 23:14-17, 20, 28-31),
and a proper protocol and ritual by which He may be approached by His
servant people (20:24-26; cf. 23:18-19). It is within the context of a
vertical covenant relationship, then, that the horizontal, societal, and
interpersonal relationships of the Book of the Covenant take on their
ultimate meaning."361
"The section before us has something to say about each of the ten
commandments, even if only incidentally."362
The basic principles of worship in Israel 20:22-26

God did not just condemn forms of worship that were inappropriate, but He instructed the
Israelites positively how they were to worship Him.
"The point of the section is this: those who worship this holy God must
preserve holiness in the way they worship—they worship where he
permits, in the manner he prescribes, and with the blessings he
promises."363

This pericope serves as an introduction to 42 judgments in 21:1—23:12. A similar section

repeats the emphases of the introduction and forms a conclusion to the judgments (23:13-
19).364
Prohibition of idolatry Prohibition of idolatry

(20:22-23) 42 judgments (23:13)
Proper forms of worship (21:1—23:12) Proper forms of worship
(20:24-26) (23:14-19)
20:22-23 Verse 22 is a preamble and historical background for what follows. On the
basis of God's revelation on the mountain, the Israelites were to obey Him
as follows.
The Israelites were not to make idols representing gods other than Yahweh
nor were they to represent Yahweh by making idols to help them worship
Him (v. 23).
20:24-26 Yahweh permitted His people to build altars where He granted special
theophanies, that is, manifestations of His presence.365 These were in
addition to the altars at Israel's central sanctuary (the tabernacle and later
the temple; cf. Judg. 6:25-27; 13:15-20; 1 Sam. 9:11-14; 16:1-5; 1 Kings
18:30-40). They were to build these altars for formal worship and for
special occasions (e.g., Josh. 8:30; Judg. 6:25-26) out of earth or uncut
stone. The Canaanites used cut or "dressed" stone for their altars, and it
was probably to distinguish the two that God directed Israel as He did.
Israel's altars were not to have steps, as many Canaanite altars did, so the
naked flesh of the priests might not appear as they mounted them to make
their offerings.
"Possibly the verse intends to oppose the practice of certain

peoples in the ancient East, like the Sumerians for instance,
whose priests . . . used to perform every ritual ceremony in
a state of nakedness. Likewise the Egyptian priests . . . used
to wear only a linen ephod, a kind of short, primitive
apron."366
"This simple description of true worship is intended to

portray the essence of the Sinai covenant in terms that are
virtually identical to that of the religion of the patriarchs—
earthen altars, burnt offerings, and simple devotion rather
than elaborate rituals. A simple earthen altar is sufficient. If

365Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua, p. 166.
366Cassuto, p. 257.
more is desired (e.g., a stone altar), then it should not be

defiled with carved stones and elaborate steps. The ultimate
purpose of any such ritual is the covering of human
nakedness that stems from the Fall (Ex 20:26b; cf. Ge 3:7).
The implication is that all ritual is only a reflection of that
first gracious act of God in covering human nakedness with
garments of skin (Ge 3:21)."367
The fundamental rights of the Israelites 21:1—23:12

It is very important to note that various law codes already existed in the ancient Near East
before the giving of the Mosaic Covenant. These included laws in the Akkadian
civilization located in Mesopotamia in the twentieth century B.C. (e.g., the Laws of
Esnunna).368 There were also the laws in the Sumerian civilization in the nineteenth
century (e.g., the Code of Lipit-Istar).369 Moreover laws in the Babylonian civilization
that followed in the eighteenth century (e.g., the Code of Hammurabi)370 existed, as did
others. People living in the Near East at the time of the Exodus (fifteenth century) knew
these laws and lived by them more or less. The Mosaic Covenant presupposes this body
of legal literature. It was not given as a comprehensive legal system to a people living
without any laws. Rather it was a series of instructions God gave as Israel's king for His
people to govern their behavior in certain specific matters. This fact explains why the
Torah (lit. instruction, i.e., the Law of Moses) does not contain fundamental instruction in
many basic areas of law, such as monogamy. The instructions in the Law of Moses
confirmed certain existing laws, cancelled other laws, and changed still others for the
Israelites as the will of God for them.371
Moses revealed the laws that follow analogically (i.e., on the basis of the association of
ideas). Analogical thinking has been more characteristic of eastern cultures and rational
thinking more typical of western cultures throughout history generally speaking.
Introduction 21:1
The "ordinances" were not laws in the usual sense of that word but the rights of those
living within Israel. The Book of the Covenant (20:22-23:33) was Israel's "Bill of
Rights."
"A selection of 'judgments' is provided as a sample of the divine

judgments which Moses gave the people. A total of forty-two 'judgments'
is given. [The 42 judgments appear in the following passages in Exodus:
21:2-6, 7-11, 12-13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18-19, 20-21, 22-23, 24-26, 27, 28-32,
33-34, 35-36; 22:1-4, 5, 6, 7-9, 10-13, 14-15, 16-17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22-24,
25-27, 28, 29-30, 31; 23:1, 2-3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 10-11, 12.] The

368Pritchard, pp. 161-63.
369Ibid., pp. 159-61.
370Ibid., pp. 163-80.
371For further explanation, see Cassuto, pp. 257-64.
number forty-two apparently stems from the fact that the Hebrew letters in
the first word of the section, 'and these' (w'lh), add up precisely to the
number forty-two (7 x 6). (There may also be a desire to have seven laws
for each of the six days of work [cf. Ex 20:11]). This suggests that the
laws in 21:1—23:12 are to be understood merely as a representative
selection of the whole Mosaic Law. It is not an attempt at a complete
listing of all the laws. The purpose of the selection was to provide a basis
for teaching the nature of divine justice. By studying specific cases of the
application of God's will in concrete situations, the reader of the
Pentateuch could learn the basic principles undergirding the covenant
relationship. Whereas the 'ten words' provided a general statement of the
basic principles of justice which God demanded of his people, the
examples selected here further demonstrated how those principles, or
ideals, were to be applied to real life situations."372
Slavery 21:2-6
21:2-4 The ancients practiced slavery widely in the Near East. These laws
protected slaves in Israel better than the laws of other nations protected
slaves in those countries.373
We should read verse 4 with the following condition added at the end of
the verse: unless he pays a ransom for them. This was possible as is clear
from the instructions regarding the redemption of people that follow.
Why did God permit slavery at all? Slavery as a social institution becomes
evil when others disregard the human rights of slaves. God protected the
rights of slaves in Israel. Likewise the apostle Paul did not urge Philemon
to set his slave Onesimus free but to treat him as a brother (Philemon15-
17). As amended by the Torah, slavery became indentured servitude in
Israel for all practical purposes, similar to household servanthood in
Victorian England. Mosaic law provided that male slaves in Israel should
normally serve as slaves no more than a few years and then go free. In
other nations, slaves often remained enslaved for life.
"We can then conclude that Exodus 21:2-4 owes nothing to

non-Biblical law. Rather it is a statement of belief about the
true nature of Israelite society: it should be made up of free
men. Economic necessities may lead an Israelite to
renounce his true heritage, but his destiny is not in the end
to be subject to purely financial considerations. Exodus
21:2 is no ordinary humanitarian provision, but expresses
Israel's fundamental understanding of its true identity. No

373See Robert Gnuse, "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel's Vision of Social Reform," Biblical
Theology Bulletin 15:2 (April 1985):44.
matter how far reality failed to match the ideal, that ideal
must be reaffirmed in successive legislation. So, in
gradually worsening economic conditions both
Deuteronomy (15:1-18) and the Holiness Code (Lev.
25:39-43) reiterate it. It is the male Israelite's right to
release (Exod. 21:2-4) which explains why the laws of
slavery (21:2-11) head that legislation which sought to
come to terms with Israel's new found statehood with all its
consequent economic problems under the united
monarchy."374
Presumably female as well as male slaves could experience redemption

from their condition at any time.
21:5-6 The Code of Hammurabi decreed that the master of a rebellious slave
could cut off the ear of that slave. So the ear (v. 6) evidently marked the
status of a slave in the ancient Near East (cf. Ps. 40:6).
Betrothal of a female 21:7-11

Females did not enjoy as much freedom as males in the ancient Near East or in Israel.
They were subject to the fathers or husbands in authority over them as well as to God (cf.
Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18). Verses 7-11 describe a girl whom her father sells as a servant
(Heb. 'amah, v. 7) for marriage, not for slavery.375 In such a case the girl would become
the servant of the father of her husband-to-be who would than give her to his son as his
wife. She would remain in her prospective father-in-law's household unless someone
redeemed her before the consummation of her marriage. If for some reason her
prospective father-in-law became displeased with her, he was to allow someone to
redeem her (set her free by the payment of a price). Her redeemer could be herself or
someone else (cf. Deut. 24:1). Her master was not to sell her to some other person, a
"foreign" person in that sense (v. 8). Such treatment was unfair to her because it violated
her legitimate human rights. "Conjugal rights" (v. 10) here refers to her living quarters
and other support provisions, not sexual intercourse. This passage is not discussing
marriage as such (after physical consummation) as the NIV and AV imply.
Homicide 21:12-17
21:12-14 The Torah upheld capital punishment for murder (v. 12), which God
commanded of Noah (Gen. 9:6) and people in the Near East practiced
from then on. It did not permit capital punishment in the case of
manslaughter (unpremeditated murder, v. 13), which the Code of
Hammurabi allowed.376
374Anthony Phillips, "The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
30 (October 1984):62.
376Code of Hammurabi, section 229, in Pritchard, pp. 163-80.
In the ancient East whoever sought sanctuary in a sacred place was safe
from punishment even if he or she had deliberately murdered someone.
The Torah removed that protection in the case of murder. God regarded
the sanctity of human life greater than the sanctity of a place (v. 4).
21:15-17 The Code of Hammurabi specified that the person who struck his father
should have his hands cut off.377 The Torah took a stronger position
requiring the death of the person who struck either parent. The reason
seems to be that by doing so the striker did not honor his parents but
revolted against God's ordained authority over him or her (v. 15; cf.
20:12).
"In the first place age is not a factor in the determining of a

delinquent in the ancient Near East: age is never mentioned
in the [non-biblical] texts. A minor, for all intents and
purposes, was one who was living in his or her parent's
house. There he or she has duties and responsibilities which
place him directly under the authority of the parent.
Responsibility for a minor's behavior rested solely with the
parent. Any anti-social act committed by the minor was
considered also an offense against the parent who dealt
with it accordingly. When proceedings are initiated against
a minor, as we shall see, it is the parent, not the courts, who
institutes the proceedings. . . .
"In ancient times no provision was made for a minor

committing a criminal act, that is, there was no special
protection extended to juveniles convicted in criminal
cases: the penalty for both an adult and a minor was the
same. This represents a striking difference from our judicial
system whereby a minor is not held to be as criminally
responsible for his conduct as an adult. In effect he is
granted a certain amount of protection by the courts, and
his sentence is not as severe as an adult's would be in a
similar case. It is curious that in the few examples we have
of felonies committed by minors in the ancient Near East
the opposite situation prevails. A minor receives a more
severe sentence than an adult would in a comparable
case. . . .
"At this point we should not get too exercised over whether
or not these punishments were ever carried out. It is
considered today most unlikely that these types of
punishments, or talionic punishment in general, were ever
377Ibid., section 195.

put into practice in the ancient Near East.378 What is

important here is the severity accorded these offenses in the
light of other offenses listed in the same legal corpus. It is
most significant that in both cases the assault is against a
parent. Assault against another person would subject the
minor to a lesser penalty. In Mesopotamian law a minor
striking someone other than his parent would not have his
hand cut off; depending on his status he would be fined or
flogged.379 Likewise, in ancient Israel he would be fined
and not subject to the death penalty (Exod. 21:18-19). Thus
we have a situation where striking a non-parent makes one
subject to regular criminal law, but striking a parent makes
one subject to a 'juvenile delinquent' law which carries a
more severe penalty."380
Kidnapping was also a capital offense (v. 16; 20:15; Gen. 37:28) as was
cursing (dishonoring) one's parents (v. 17; cf. 20:12). Verse 15 deals with
a criminal offense, but verse 17 describes a civil offense (cf. Lev. 20:9;
Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; 30:11). Marcus went on to distinguish this type
of offense as follows.
"Turning now to non-criminal acts, civil or status offenses,
we review the salient points of the modern definition of a
juvenile delinquent as one who is incorrigible,
ungovernable, or habitually disobedient. The operative
word in most modern definitions is 'habitual.' An isolated
occurrence does not make a child delinquent. Note that the
New York State definition speaks of the child as being
'habitually disobedient,' and the California one terms the
delinquent as one who 'habitually refuses to obey.' We shall
see that a number of ancient Near Eastern legal texts make
this distinction as well. This is important because it enables
us to distinguish what is clearly delinquency from what is
only what we call 'generation gap' disagreements. The
ancients were well aware of this generation gap between
parents and children."381
All of these crimes worthy of death (in vv. 12-17) were serious in God's eyes. They either
violated a basic right of a human being created in God's image or were expressions of
rebellion against God's revealed authority in the home, the basic unit of society.
378Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. "Cuneiform Law," by J. Finkelstein, 16:1505i.

379Code of Hammurabi, sections 202-4.
380David Marcus, "Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East," Journal of the Ancient
Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):32-34.
381Ibid., pp. 35-36. For an evaluation of modern American penological philosophies in the light of the
Mosaic Law, see Gary R. Williams, "The Purpose of Penology in the Mosaic Law and Today," Bibliotheca
Sacra 133:529 (January-March 1976):42-55.
"Life, in essence, is the property of God; the possession of it is leased to

human beings for a number of years. This lease can be extended or
contracted in accordance with God's will. (Cf. 1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Kings
20:1-6; Job 1:12-19.) When a man arrogates to himself the right of
ownership in the life of human beings and interferes with the right of
enjoyment of life by taking it away—that is, killing it—he has violated
one of the essential laws of God and therefore forfeits his own right to the
possession of life."382
Bodily injuries 21:18-32
Moses cited five cases in this section, as was true in the preceding one (vv. 12-17).
21:18-19 The Torah made no distinction in the penalty an aggressor paid because of
his intent (vv. 18-28). The inferior Hammurabi Code did by permitting the
assailant to pay less damage if he claimed no intent to cause injury.383
21:20-21 As other people, slaves also enjoyed protection from murderers (v. 20; cf.
v. 12). However the slave owner likewise experienced protection from
execution if his punishment of a slave was not the direct cause of the
slave's death. In this case the law regarded the loss of the slave as
sufficient punishment of the master (v. 21).
21:22 Manslaughter of an unborn child carried a fine (v. 22). The reason seems
to have rested on two assumptions. First, accidental killing is not as
serious a crime as deliberate killing. Second, a fetus, though a human life,
does not have the same status as a self-sufficient human being.384
"The most significant thing about abortion legislation in

Biblical law is that there was none. It was so unthinkable
that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there
was no need to mention this offense in the criminal
code."385
Pro-abortion advocates frequently appeal to Exodus 21:22 to support their

claim that a fetus is not a person and, therefore, abortion is not murder.
382Davis, p. 221.
383Code of Hammurabi, section 206.
384See Sandra Lubarsky, "Judaism and the Justification of Abortion for Non-Medical Reasons," Journal of
Reform Judaism 31:4 (Fall 1984):1-13, which contains helpful information on the rabbinic teaching on
abortion, though the author's conclusion, ". . . Judaism not only permits abortions for medical reasons, but
also supports abortion for non-medical reasons" (p. 12), contradicts the spirit of Old Testament teaching.
385Meredith Kline, "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus," Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 (1985-86):75. See
also Bruce K. Waltke, "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13; and Robert N. Congdon, "Exodus 21:22-25 and the Abortion
Debate," Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):132-47.
"In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you
merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you
lose your own life. Thus the Bible clearly shows that a fetus
is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to
be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the
same as for killing the woman—death. Abortion, then, is
not murder."386
However other Scriptures present the fetus as a person, a real human being
(Job 10:8-12; 15:14; Ps. 51:5; 58:3; 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5; Jer. 1:5; Gal.
1:15). This was the prevailing opinion in the ancient Near East as well.387
In contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes, the Torah made no
differentiation on the basis of the woman's social class. It treated all
equally. Also only the man who caused the injury was liable, not other
members of his family who could suffer punishment for his offense and
often did in other ancient Near Eastern societies. Principles explained
elsewhere in the Torah determined the penalty the guilty party had to
pay.388
21:23-25 God intended the "eye for eye" provision to limit punishment rather than
giving free reign to it. The law of retaliation (Latin lex talionis) became
common in the ancient Near East. It sought to control the tendency of
someone who had only suffered a minor injury to take major revenge. For
example, a man might kill the person who beat up his brother (cf. Gen.
4:23). God forbade such excessive vengeance among His people and
limited them so that they should only exact equal payment for offenses
committed against them and no more.
"This law of the talion, for a long time thought to be a more

primitive kind of penalty, the reflection of a barbaric law
form, has been shown by more recent comparative studies
to be a later development, designed to remedy the
inevitable abuses made possible by monetary payment for
physical injury."389
386Graham Spurgeon, "Is Abortion Murder?" in The Religious Case for Abortion, p. 16. For the same view,
see also Shalom Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law, p.
71; Lloyd Kalland, "Fetal Life," Eternity, February 1971, p. 24; and Dolores E. Dunnett, "Evangelicals and
Abortion," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33:2 (June 1990):217.
387See the excellent discussion by Russell Fuller, "Exodus 21:22-23: The Miscarriage Interpretation and
the Personhood of the Fetus," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1992):169-84.
Fuller also evaluated and rejected the popular evangelical view that this verse does not refer to a
miscarriage but to a premature birth.
388See Stanley Isser, "Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited," Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):30-45, for some ancient abortion laws and the views of Jewish rabbis and
translators on this passage.
389Durham, p. 324.
"According to Num. xxxv 31 it is only from a willful

murderer that it is forbidden to accept ransom [payment in
place of punishment]; this implies that in all other instances
the taking of a ransom is permitted. . . .
"This being so, the meaning here in our paragraph of the

expression life for life [v. 23] is that the one who hurts the
woman accidentally shall be obliged to pay her husband the
value of her life if she dies, and of her children if they
die."390
21:26-27 In contrast to verse 27, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed that in such a
case the offender had to pay the slave's master half the price of the
slave.391 If a master blinded his own slave, this code required no penalty.
The Torah shows greater concern for the slave. This law would have
discouraged masters from physically abusing their slaves.
21:28-32 The Hammurabi Code specified the death of the son of the owner of the ox
if the ox killed the son of another man (v. 31).392 The Torah required the
owner's life or a ransom (v. 30). Note, too, that verses 31 and 32 value the
lives of male and female slaves the same. The value of an adult slave
under the Torah was 30 shekels of silver (cf. Matt. 26:15). Under the Code
of Hammurabi it was 1/3 of a mina of silver (about 17 shekels).393 The ox
also died by stoning. In this way God taught His people that they should
view even slaves as created in His image (cf. Gen. 9:5). The goring ox (vv.
28-32) is the typical example of death caused by cattle or domestic
animals.
"The fate of the ox gives clear evidence of the theological

principle of the subordination of the animal world to human
sovereignty. That the fatal goring of one ox by another
required only compensation shows the relative
insignificance of the animal-to-animal relationship (vv. 35-
36)."394
Property damage 21:33—22:15
21:33-34 The pit represents a typical case of damage caused by an inanimate object
or natural phenomenon. These specific cases doubtless served as
precedents for other similar cases.
390Cassuto, p. 277.
21:35-36 The law concerning a cattle fight is the same as one in the Laws of
Esnunna, a twentieth century B.C. Akkadian law code.395 However the
Torah differentiated between an ox that gored habitually and one that did
not in the case of one ox goring another. Thus the Torah showed higher
regard for the rights and responsibilities of individuals.
22:1-4 According to the Code of Hammurabi a thief should die if he could not
repay what he had stolen396 or if he stole by breaking in.397 The Torah
modified this law by annulling the death penalty and substituting the
penalty of being sold into slavery, in the first case. In the second case, it
annulled the death penalty and protected the life of the victim. Verses 1
and 4 of chapter 22 go together and deal with theft generally. The reason
for the fivefold and fourfold penalties appears to be that the thief was
taking the means of another person's livelihood.398 Verses 2 and 3, which
deal with breaking and entering, address a special type of theft. Perhaps
the law assumed that the thief's intent was murder as well as theft if he
broke in at night but only theft if he broke in in daylight. If so, we might
assume that if his intentions turned out to have been otherwise, the law
would deal with him accordingly. The text gives only the typical case.
Perhaps the logic was that at night the victim's life was in greater danger
so the law allowed him to use more force in resisting his assailant than in
the daytime.
22:5-6 The fourth case involves damage due to grazing or burning. In the first
instance (v. 5) the Torah required restitution from "the best" of the
offender whereas the Code of Hammurabi required only restitution.399
These two examples further illustrate God's respect for the rights of others.
22:7-15 Next we have four cases involving property held in custody. In the
Hammurabi Code the penalty for losing or allowing a thief to steal what
someone else had committed to one's trust was death400 as was falsely
accusing someone of this crime.401 The Torah required only twofold
payment in both situations (v. 9).
Second, if what someone entrusted to his neighbor for safekeeping

perished by accident (vv. 10-13) the neighbor was not responsible to make
restitution. This was the law under the Code of Hammurabi too.402
395Laws of Esnunna, section 53.

402Ibid., sections 263-67.
Third, if someone borrowed something and it then suffered damage or it

died (v. 14-15a) the borrower was responsible to make restitution. This
was the procedure unless the owner (lender) was present when the damage
or death took place. In that case the lender was responsible for his own
property.
Fourth, if someone rented something and then damaged it or it died (v.

15b) the borrower was not responsible to make restitution since the fee he
had paid covered his liability. The Code of Hammurabi specified no
liability in either of these last two instances.403
Crimes against society 22:16-31
22:16-17 Next we have a case of seduction. Here the girl is viewed as the property
of her father. If a young couple had premarital sex, the young man had to
marry the young woman and give his father-in-law the customary payment
(i.e., a dowry) to do so. The girl's father could refuse this offer, however,
in which case the boy would not get the girl but would still have to pay the
dowry. This law pertained to situations in which seduction (persuasion),
not rape, had resulted in intercourse. Other Torah passages that indicate
that premarital sex is sinful include Genesis 2:24 and Deuteronomy 22:13-
29. Moses did not comment on other similar situations here. Israel was
evidently to function in harmony with previously existing law in these
cases.404
"As many scholars recognize, the second half of the Book

of the Covenant begins at Exodus 22:18 and the
stipulations undergo a change in content to match what is
clearly a change in form. The first half (Ex. 20:22—22:17)
is fundamentally casuistic, whereas the latter half is not.405
That is, the stipulations now are expressed as prescriptions
or prohibitions with little or no reference to the penalty
attached to violation in each case."406
22:18-20 God prohibited three more practices each of which brought the death
penalty. All involve idolatry.
In the ancient world, people made a distinction between black magic and
white magic. The former sought to harm someone, and the latter did not.
The Hammurabi Code prohibited the former only,407 but the Torah
outlawed both without distinction. Magic constituted an attempt to
403Ibid.,
section 249.
404Cassuto, pp. 288-89.
405Childs, p. 477.
407Code of Hamurabi, section 2.
override God's will. Probably Moses mentioned only the sorceress (v. 18)
because women were particularly active in the practice of magic. Probably
the law would have dealt with a sorcerer the same way.408
Having intercourse with animals (bestiality, v. 19) was something the

Canaanites and Mesopotamians attributed to their gods and which they
practiced in worshipping those gods. Whereas some law codes imposed
the death penalty for having intercourse with certain animals, the Torah
prohibited this practice completely.
The third ordinance (v. 20) prohibited offering any sacrifice to idols.
22:21-27 The next collection of laws deals with various forms of oppression. The
first section deals with love for the poor and needy. While the Israelites
were not to tolerate the idolatrous customs of foreigners, they were to
manifest love toward the foreigners themselves as well as toward the poor
and needy generally. The Israelites were to remember the oppression they
had endured in Egypt and were to refrain from oppressing others. They
were not only to refrain from doing evil but were to do positive good (vv.
26-27; cf. Matt. 5:44; Rom. 12:14).
22:28 This verse urges reverence toward God and the leaders of the community.
Having dealt with proper behavior toward people on a lower social level,
God also specified how to deal with those on higher levels of authority.
22:29-30 The law for firstfruits required the Israelites to offer several offerings to
the Lord. Perhaps the purpose of allowing animals to stay with their
mothers for the first seven days of their lives was to allow them to develop
safely.409 It may also have been to give natural relief to the dam by
suckling its offspring.410
22:31 Animal flesh torn in the field before humans ate it was unsuitable for
Israelite consumption. Not only might the animal have died from a
communicable disease, but second-rate food like this was inappropriate for
people set apart to a holy God.
Justice and neighborliness 23:1-9

This section appeals for justice toward all people. The subject of the legislation now
shifts from love for all to justice for all. The Israelites should treat all people justly, not
only the rich but also the poor (v. 3), the enemy as well as the friend (v. 4). Jezebel later
did to Naboth what verse 7 warns against (cf. 1 Kings 21:9-14).
408See Roy B. Zuck, "The Practice of Witchcraft in the Scriptures," Bibliotheca Sacra 128:512 (October-
December 1971):352-60.
409Durham, p. 330.
Rest 23:10-12
"Till now the text dealt with positive and negative precepts that are valid at all
times; now we have a series of precepts that are to be observed at given times,
commandments that apply to seasons that are specifically dedicated to the service
of the Lord, and are intended to remind the Israelites of the covenant that the Lord
made with them, and of the duty resting upon them to be faithful to this
covenant."411
23:10-11 The people were to observe the sabbatical year (cf. Lev. 25:2-7; Deut.
15:1-3). The Israelites' failure to observe 70 sabbatical years resulted in
God removing Israel from the Promised Land to Babylon for 70 years to
give the land its rest (2 Chron. 36:20-21).
23:12 God intended Sabbath observance to give His people and even their
laboring animals needed rest (v. 12).
The reiteration of basic principles of worship 23:13-19

23:13 This verse is a summary warning against idolatry (cf. 20:22-23).
"The continual return to the theme of idolatry throughout
this section of the book is preparation and background for
an appreciation of the incident of the golden calf (Ex
32)."412
23:14-17 All the male Israelites had to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary
(tabernacle) three times a year for the feasts of Unleavened Bread,
Firstfruits (Weeks, Pentecost), and Ingathering (Booths, Tabernacles).
Women and children would have normally accompanied the males. This
requirement fostered the maintenance of the national and social unity of
the 12 tribes as well as their spiritual unity.
23:18 "The first part of this verse has nothing to do with eating
anything leavened. Rather it means that individual Israelites
were not to kill the Passover lamb while leaven was still in
their houses. The second half of the verse makes no
reference to fat as such; but as the parallel verse in 34:25b
says, the 'sacrifice from the Passover Feast' (here lit.,
'sacrifice of my feast') shall not 'remain until morning' (cf.
12:10)."413
The "fat" means "the best part," here the whole sacrifice.
23:19 The commentators have accounted for the prohibition against boiling a kid
(young lamb) in its mother's milk in many different ways. Some scholars
411Cassuto, p. 300.
believe it was the opposition to commingling life and death, a source of

life and its product, or Israel and the nations, that was the basis for this
prohibition (cf. Lev. 22:27-28; Deut. 22:6).414 Another view is that it was a
way of specifying that only weaned animals were acceptable as sacrifices
(cf. 34:18-26).415 The most popular explanation is that this was a pagan
practice that showed disrespect for the God-given relationship between
parent and offspring.416 The Ras Shamra tablets have shown that boiling
sacrificial kids in their mother's milk was a common ritual practice among
the Canaanites.417 This ordinance is the basis for the separation strict Jews
make in their diet by not mixing dairy and meat products. Observant Jews
even provide separate equipment and kitchens for the preparation of these
dishes.
Yahweh's relation to Israel 23:20-33

In this final part of the Book of the Covenant (20:22—23:33), God gave the Israelites
promises and precepts relating to their conquest of the Promised Land. Suzerainty treaties
normally concluded with an explanation of the benefits that would come to the vassals if
they obeyed the king's commands and the difficulties they would experience if they
disobeyed. That is characteristic of this section of the covenant, though the emphasis is
positive.
"Similar opening [20:22-26] and closing remarks are also found in the
codes of Hammurabi and Lipit-Istar."418
"Following the text of the covenant code Yahweh assures His people of
His ongoing commitment. He had not brought them out of Egypt and
made covenant with them only to forget them in the wilderness. He had
promised to give them land, so now He speaks of the process by which
they would enter the land and the circumstances they would face there
(Ex. 23:20-33)."419
23:20-23 God stressed the importance of obedience in these verses. The angel
referred to was undoubtedly the Angel of the Lord (cf. Josh. 5:13-15).
23:24-26 Moses stressed the worship of the true God as opposed to the idols of
Canaan again. Note the repeated emphasis on obedience and worship also
in verses 20-26.420
414Jacob Milgrom, "'You Shall Not Boil a Kid in It's Mother's Milk,'" Bible Review 1:3 (Fall 1985):48-55;
Merrill, in The Old . . ., p. 63.
416E.g., Meyer, p. 270.
417See Charles F. Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible. For other views, see Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 445.
418Cassuto, p. 305.
420On the promise that God would give the Israelites good health, see my comments on 15:26.
23:27-28 God promised His people various provisions if they would be obedient.
We should probably understand the hornets (v. 28) figuratively. There is
no reference in the text to God using real hornets to drive out the
Canaanites, but He did use other hornet-like forces (cf. Josh. 24:12).
"Perhaps 'the hornet' is a symbol of Egypt, just as Isaiah

7:18 uses the 'fly' and the 'bee' as symbols of Egypt and
Assyria, respectively."421
23:29-30 God told the Israelites that they would not drive out all their enemies the
first year after they entered the land (v. 29). They did not. However, Israel
was less successful than she might have been due to incomplete
obedience.
"'Little by little' does the work of God proceed through the

individual soul. 'Little by little' do the conquests of the
Cross win over the world. 'Little by little' is the unfolding
purpose of Redemption made manifest to men and
angels."422
23:31 God further promised a wide land area. It stretched from the Red Sea
(probably the Gulf of Aqabah, the southeastern boundary) to the
Mediterranean Sea (the western boundary). It also ran from the wilderness
(probably the northeast edge of the Sinai wilderness, the southwest
boundary) to the Euphrates River (the northeastern boundary; cf. Gen.
15:18). Some writers believed that this is a reference to the river that now
forms the border between modern Lebanon and Syria.423 Yet in the
Hebrew Bible "the river" usually refers to the Euphrates. Israel did not
occupy all of this territory due to her disobedience to God.
23:32-33 These verses contain a final warning. Israel was to make no covenants
with the Canaanites or their gods because she already had a covenant with
Yahweh. The Israelites failed here too (e.g., Josh 9:3-15).
"The Decalogue begins with the command that Israel have no god other
than Yahweh. The Book of the Covenant begins (20:23) and ends (23:32-
33) with that same command, and all that lies between that beginning and
that ending is designed to assure its obedience."424
It is very important to observe that God conditioned obtaining all that He promised the
Israelites as an inheritance on their obedience. They could only enter into it by obeying
God. Their inheritance was something different from their salvation, which came to them

422Meyer, pp. 281-82.
423E.g., Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 447.
424Durham, p. 337.
only by faith in God (Gen. 15:6; Exod. 12:13; 14:31). The New Testament likewise
teaches that justification comes solely by faith in God, but only obedient Christians will
obtain the full inheritance that God has promised us (cf. Heb. 3:12—4:14).425
5. The ratification of the Covenant 24:1-11

"The great event in chapter 24 is the climax of the Book of Exodus."426
24:1-8 The remaining verses in this section contain God's directions to Moses
personally. He, Aaron, Aaron's two eldest sons, and 70 of the elders of
Israel were to ascend the mountain to worship God. God permitted only
Moses to approach Him closely, however.
Moses first related the content of God's covenant with Israel orally, and
the people submitted to it (v. 3). Then he wrote out God's words to
preserve them permanently for the Israelites (v. 4). The altar he built
memorialized this place as where God had revealed Himself to His people.
The 12 pillars were probably not part of the altar but separate from it.
They probably represented the permanent relationship of the 12 tribes with
God that God established when He made this covenant.
"In the ceremony to be performed, the altar will represent
the glory of the Lord, whilst the pillars will represent the
tribes of Israel; the two contrasting parties will stand facing
each other."427
The 12 pillars may also have served as memorial standing stones to
commemorate the occasion (cf. Gen. 31:45).428 The young men (v. 5) were
probably assistants to Moses chosen for this special occasion to serve as
priests (cf. 19:22, 24).
"In the blood sprinkled on the altar [v. 6], the natural life of
the people was given up to God, as a life that had passed
through death, to be pervaded by His grace; and then
through the sprinkling upon the people [v. 8] it was
restored to them again, as a life renewed by the grace of
God. In this way the blood not only became a bond of
union between Jehovah and His people, but by the blood of
the covenant, it became a vital power, holy and divine,
uniting Israel and its God; and the sprinkling of the people
with this blood was an actual renewal of life, a
transposition of Israel into the kingdom of God, in which it
425For a good explanation of the Old and New Testament teaching on the subject of the believer's
inheritance, see Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, pp. 43-110.
426Ramm, p. 139.
427Cassuto, p. 311.
428John W. Hilber, "Theology of Worship in Exodus 24," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
39:2 (June 1996):181.
was filled with the powers of God's spirit of grace, and

sanctified into a kingdom of priests, a holy nation of
Jehovah (19:6)."429
"The throwing of half of the blood of the offerings against
the altar, which represented the Lord, and half on the
people, or that which represented them, signifies a joining
together of the two contracting parties (communio), and
symbolized the execution of the deed of covenant between
them.
"Between one blood-throwing and the other, the content of
the covenant was finally and solemnly ratified by Moses'
reading from the Book of the Covenant and by the people's
expression of consent."430
This ritual constituted the formal ratification of the Mosaic Covenant by
which Yahweh adopted Israel as His "son" (cf. Gen. 15). The parallel with
the inauguration of the New Covenant is striking (cf. Matt. 26:28; 1 Cor.
11:25).
"In all such ceremonies the oath of obedience [v. 7] implied
the participants' willingness to suffer the fate of the
sacrificed animals if the covenant stipulations were violated
by those who took the oath."431
"Virtually every sovereign-vassal treaty incorporated a list
of deities before whom the solemn oaths of mutual fidelity
were sworn. These 'witnesses' could not, of course, be
invoked in the case of the biblical covenants, for there were
not gods but Yahweh and no higher powers to whom
appeal could be made in the event of covenant violation.
The counterpart of this is not lacking, however, for the
ceremony of covenant-making described in Exodus 24
clearly includes 'witnesses' to the transaction. These are in
the form of the altar, which represented Yahweh, and the
twelve pillars, which represented the twelve tribes.
Although there is no explicit word to the effect that these
objects were witnesses as well as representations, the use of
inanimate objects in that capacity elsewhere certainly
allows for that possibility here."432

430Cassuto, p. 312.
432Merrill, "A Theology . . .," pp. 34-35. Cf. Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28. See also Kline, The Treaty . . ., p.
15.
"This is the covenant meal, the peace offering, that they are
eating there on the mountain. To eat from the sacrifice
meant that they were at peace with God, in covenant with
him. Likewise, in the new covenant believers draw near to
God on the basis of sacrifice, and eat of the sacrifice
because they are at peace with him, and in Christ they see
the Godhead revealed."433
There is some disagreement among the commentators about the meaning
of "the Book of the Covenant" (v. 7). Most take it to mean the "Bill of
Rights" that God had just given (20:22—23:33).434 Some feel it included
"the whole corpus of Sinai laws."435 Others hold that ". . . it denotes a
short general document, a kind of testimony and memorial to the making
of the covenant."436 I prefer the view that it refers to the covenant
stipulations God had made known to the Israelites at this time including
the Decalogue and the "Bill of Rights." This seems most consistent with
other references to this book in the text.437
24:9-11 The ratification ceremony concluded with a meal (vv. 9-11), not a picnic
lunch but a sacrificial meal (v. 5).
"'They ate and drank' describes a covenant meal celebrating
the sealing of the covenant described in vv. 3-8."438
We must understand the statement that the leaders of Israel saw God (v.
10) in the light of other passages (33:20-23; Isa. 6:1; John 1:18). Perhaps
they only saw His feet or, more exactly, a representation of part of God in
human form (cf. Isa. 6:1; Rev. 4:2, 6). The pavement of clear sapphire
contributed to the vision of God as the supra-terrestrial sovereign (cf.
Ezek. 1:22; Rev. 4:6; 12:2).
". . . what Moses and his companions experience is a
theophany of the Presence of God, not a vision of his
person, and what they see, bowed before even that
awesome reality, is what could be seen from a position of
obeisant prostration, the surface on which his Presence
offered itself. . . . The reference in v 10 may therefore be a
double one, calling up the deep dark blue of an endless sky
and the building materials of legendary divine dwelling-
places."439

434Wolf, p. 153.
435Childs, p. 506; Johnson, p. 74.
436Cassuto, p. 312.
437See Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 449.
438Ibid., p. 450.
439Durham, p. 344.
God in mercy did not consume the sinners before Him. Rather He allowed
them to eat in His presence thus symbolizing the fact that He was taking
on responsibility for their safety and welfare (cf. Gen. 31:44-46).440
"We have argued that the awkward surface structure of the narrative [in
chapters 19—24], which results in the non-linear temporal ordering of
events, can be explained when one takes into account the sequence
structure of the narrative, particularly the use of the literary device called
resumptive repetition. As a result of this literary device we have
demonstrated that the narrative contains two different perspectives of the
theophany. First, there is the perspective of Yahweh which emphasizes the
preparation and execution of the covenant as well as highlighting the
holiness of God, which is a key to understanding the relationship that
exists between Yahweh and His people. Second, there is the perspective of
the people, which is elaborated upon in the two resumptive narratives in
20, 18-21 and 24, 1-8. The first resumptive narrative in 20, 18-21, which
elaborates in detail the fear of the people, serves as a preface and
introduction to the Decalogue and Covenant Code. In addition, it also acts
as a causal link between the fear of the people and their sinful acts below
the mountain in Exod 32. The second resumptive narrative in 24, 1-8
elaborates in detail the ratification of the covenant and also leads into the
subsequent ascent of Moses to the mountain where he receives the rest of
God's regulations."441
C. DIRECTIONS REGARDING GOD'S DWELLING AMONG HIS PEOPLE 24:12—

31:18
Having given directions clarifying Israel's obedience in the Book of the Covenant (20:22-
23:33), God now summoned Moses up into the mountain again to receive His directions
regarding Israel's worship. The Book of the Covenant specified how the Israelites were to
live with one another, but the tabernacle showed them how God wanted them to worship
Him.442
"The establishment of a covenant relationship necessitated a means

whereby the vassal party could regularly appear before the Great King to
render his accountability. In normal historical relationships of this kind
between mere men, some sort of intercession was frequently mandatory
and, in any case, a strict protocol had to be adhered to.443 How much more
must this be required in the case of a sinful people such as Israel, who
must, notwithstanding, communicate with and give account to an infinitely
transcendent and holy God."444
440See Livingston, pp. 157-62.

441G. C. Chirichigno, "The Narrative Structure of Exod. 19-24," Biblica 68:4 (1987):478-79.
442Cf. Davis, p. 192.
443For Hittite practice, see O. R. Gurney, The Hittites, pp. 74-75.
444Merrill, "A Theology . . .," pp. 48-49.
Why did Moses record God's instructions for the tabernacle before the people sinned by
making the golden calf? It was, after all, the golden calf incident that led to the giving of
the priestly laws.
". . . according to the logic of the narrative, it was Israel's fear that had
created the need for a safe approach to God, that is, one in which the
people as such were kept at a distance and a mediator was allowed to
represent them. It was precisely for this reason that the tabernacle was
given to Israel."445
1. The revelation of the directions 24:12-18

Moses stayed in the heights of the mountain 40 days and nights while God gave him the
stone tablets of the law and all the details of the tabernacle and its worship. Thus Moses
was completely dependent on God. Now that Israel had entered into a blood covenant
with God, God purposed to dwell among His people (cf. John 1:14). Similarly God now
dwells among Christians by His Holy Spirit since Jesus Christ has ratified the New
Covenant by shedding His blood.
The spectacular vision of the glory of God on the mountain "like a consuming fire" (v.
17) should have given the Israelites greater respect for God's revelation than they
demonstrated later (cf. 32:1-8). There were three symbols of God's glory: the cloud, the
fire, and the voice.
2. Contributions for the construction of the sanctuary 25:1-9

"Only voluntary gifts were acceptable as materials for the Lord's house
(25:2; 35:3, 21-22, 29), since love rather than compulsion is the basis of
all truly biblical giving (2 Cor. 9:7)."446
Moses usually employed one of four different terms to describe the tabernacle each of
which emphasizes one of its purposes, though other names also appear.
1. Sanctuary (25:8) means "place of holiness" and stresses the transcendence of

Israel's God as an exalted being different from His people. However this verse
also states that such a God would "dwell among" His people.447
2. Tabernacle (25:9) means "dwelling place" and emphasizes God's purpose of

abiding near His people.
"Just as they lived in tents, so God would condescend to 'dwell' in

a tent."448

447See Angel Manuel Rodriguez, "Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus," Andrews University
Seminary Studies 24:2 (Summer 1986):127-45.
3. Tent of Meeting (26:36; 29:42-43; 35:21) also stresses the imminence of God.
God met with Moses and the Israelites in this tent. The verb translated "meeting"
means a deliberate prearranged rendezvous rather than a casual accidental
meeting. Some scholars believe that the tent of meeting was a structure different
from the tabernacle and that it was always outside the camp of Israel.449
4. Tabernacle (or Tent) of Testimony (38:21; Num. 9:15; 17:7, 8) indicates that the
structure was the repository of the Law. Moses sometimes referred to the ark of
the covenant as the "ark of the testimony" (25:22) that contained the "two tablets
of the testimony" (31:18) on which were the Ten Commandments. The Ten
Commandments are the "testimony." They were the essential stipulations of the
Mosaic Covenant, the heart of the relationship between God and His people.
God designed the tabernacle structure and all its furnishings to teach the Israelites about
Himself and how they as sinners could have a relationship with Him.
"The thoughts of God concerning salvation and His kingdom, which the
earthly building was to embody and display, were visibly set forth in the
pattern shown [to Moses]."450
"The tabernacle also provided a prophetic prefigurement of the redemptive

program of God as focused in Jesus Christ. . . . [It] was a remarkable
picture of the high priestly work of Christ both here on earth and His
eternal work in the heavens."451
"Probably the conception of the tabhnith, the 'model' (Exodus 25:9), also
goes back ultimately to the idea that the earthly sanctuary is the
counterpart of the heavenly dwelling of a deity."452
3. The tabernacle furnishings 25:10-40

One writer identified three major problems the interpreter faces as he or she seeks to
understand God's revelation concerning the tabernacle.453
1. What was the length of the cubit, the standard measure of length? This is a
problem because various nations had different lengths for their cubits. A cubit
was usually the distance between the elbow and the middle fingertip. The length
ranged from about 17 inches to 21 inches, but there is good reason to believe the
Hebrew cubit at this time was 17.5 inches or about one and a half feet.
449E.g.,Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, p. 401.

451Davis, pp. 245-56.
452Frank M. Cross Jr., "The Tabernacle," Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):62. For a good
introduction to the background of the tabernacle, see G. Ernest Wright, "The Significance of the Temple in
the Ancient Near East," Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77. Cf. Exod. 25:40; Heb. 8:5.
453Davis, pp. 246-51.
2. What about the information omitted in the text? Anyone who has tried to make a
model or detailed drawing of the tabernacle and its furnishings has experienced
frustration. The data given in the text is incomplete. Undoubtedly God revealed
all the details to Moses. However, He has preserved only those details necessary
for our understanding of the fundamental significance and functioning of the
tabernacle in Scripture.
3. What was the exact shape of the tabernacle? The text does not enable us to know
for certain if it had a flat roof or a gabled roof formed by a ridgepole. Both
possibilities have problems connected with them, but the flat roof design seems
more probable all things considered. A gabled roof would increase the
measurement of the roof beyond the width of 15 feet so the curtains over the roof
and sides would not fully cover the sides.
Another problem is the extent of typological teaching that God intended. A "type" is a
divinely intended illustration.454 Thus all types are illustrations, but not all illustrations
are types. How much detail did God intend to illustrate His character and relationship
with His people?
We know the major aspects of the tabernacle and its furnishings are types because the
New Testament writers identified them as such (Heb. 3:4-5; 8:5; 9:8-9, 23-24; 10:20).
However the amount of detail Moses preserved and the obvious correspondence of
certain details not identified as types have led many commentators to conclude that God
intended these details to be instructive too. Some commentators have taken this teaching
to extend to the numbers and colors used that, in some cases in scriptural usage, do have
symbolic significance. Some commentators have taken this too far in the judgment of
other students of Exodus.
I prefer a cautious approach myself. It seems to me that there are many illustrations of
New Testament truth in the Old Testament. This seems clear in view of the amount of
detail God preserved here. It also seems clear since the illustrative significance of some
features of the tabernacle is so obvious even though the New Testament does not identify
them as types. An extremely conservative approach would be to identify as types only
those things that the New Testament calls types (Gr. typos, cf. antitypos). These would
include Adam (Rom. 5:14), the wilderness wanderings of Israel (1 Cor. 10:6, 11), the
holy place in the tabernacle and temple (Heb. 9:24), and the flood in Noah's day (1 Pet.
3:21). We could refer to other foreshadowings simply as illustrations.455
Josephus, following Philo, interpreted the tabernacle, its furniture, and the priests'
garments symbolically. He wrote that the seven branches of the lampstand represent the
courses of the planets. The colors of the curtains and clothing represent the four elements
454Charles C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, p. 23.

455See Paul Lee Tan, Principles of Literal Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 36-39. Examples of extensive
typological interpretation are Edward Dennett, Typical Teachings of Genesis; C. H. M[ackintosh], Notes on
the Pentateuch, vols. 3-5; A. J. Pollock, The Tabernacle's Typical Teaching; Samuel Ridout, Lectures on
the Tabernacle; and H. W. Soltau, The Tabernacle, the Priesthood and the Offerings.
(earth, water, air, and fire). The two shoulder stones stand for the sun and moon. The 12
breastplate stones represent the 12 months or the 12 signs of the Greek zodiac.456 His
suggestions do not seem to be the best interpretations of the significance of these things.
Note that the order in which Moses described the things associated with the tabernacle in
the text is not what one would normally expect. For example, we would expect that after
the description of the altar of burnt offerings we would have a description of the laver.
The altar of burnt offerings was the major piece of furniture in the courtyard and the first
one the Israelite would meet as he entered the courtyard. The laver was the second most
prominent item. It would catch the Israelite's eye next. It was also the object between the
altar and the tabernacle. However instead we read about the altar of burnt offerings, then
the priestly vestments, then the consecration of Aaron, and then the laver. This order is
due to the two emphases in the revelation. First, Moses described things that primarily
manifest God, and second, things dealing with His people's fellowship with God. The
author described first things in the holy of holies where God dwelt, then things in the
holy place, then things in the courtyard. This order focuses attention on the presence of
Yahweh among His people, which was the most important feature of Israel's life. The
tabernacle itself also reflects the importance of Yahweh's presence at the center of His
people.
"The tabernacle was built on a ratio of 2:1 and on a radiating decrease

value of metal: gold, silver, bronze, from the center [where God dwelt] to
the outer edges."457
The materials that the Israelites were to use in the construction of the tabernacle and its
worship were the finest and rarest available. This reflected the fact that nothing but the
best was appropriate for response to Yahweh. What was at the center of priestly concern
was not a building or a ritual but the Lord Himself, present as a gift to His people.458
The ark of the covenant 25:10-22
The ark was the throne of Yahweh where He dwelt in a localized way and met with the
Israelites through their high priest. It was the seat of His sovereignty but also the place
where He met with His people (v. 22). This is why directions for its construction come
first. The testimony (Ten Commandments, vv. 16, 22) lay inside the ark, which was a
hollow box. God's dwelling among His people and His relationship with them thus quite
literally rested on the Ten Commandments. The mercy seat (v. 17) was the removable
"lid" of this box and was solid gold. It was there that the high priest offered sacrificial
blood once a year to atone for (cover) the sins of the Israelites as a nation. This offering
made propitiation (satisfaction) for their sins for one year (cf. Lev. 16).
The Greek word used to translate "mercy seat" here in the Septuagint (hilasterion) is
another form of the word used to describe Jesus Christ as our propitiation in 1 John 2:2
456Josephus,3:7:7.
457Livingston,p. 178.
458Durham, p. 355.
(hilasmos). The mercy seat was for the Israelites temporarily what Jesus Christ is for all
people permanently: the place where God found satisfaction.
"It [mercy] is a sweet word! A seat of mercy, baptised [sic] in mercy, from
which mercy flows forth. Not wrath, not judgment, not indignation, but
mercy is pouring forth from its original fountain in the heart of God."459
The cherubim (v. 18) were angels

THE PLAN OF THE TABERNACLE
who "apparently have to do with the
holiness of God as violated by sin."460 WEST
They may have looked like winged
human-headed lions.461 Josephus
Holy of
wrote that Moses saw these creatures Ark of the Holies
around God's throne when he was on Covenant
Mt. Sinai.462
Altar of
Incense
"The cherubim are connected
with the throne as its Table of
Lampstand Showbread
guardians and/or bearers. In
other cultures cherubim are SOUTH
Holy
Place NORTH
minor deities protective of
palaces and temple; in Israel
they symbolized angelic
guardians of the invisible Laver
throne of God."463
The table of showbread 25:23-30 Altar of

Burnt
Offerings
This piece of furniture stood on the
north side of the holy place, the right EAST
side as the priest entered from the
courtyard. The priests placed twelve loaves (large pieces) of unleavened464 bread in two
rows465 or piles466 on this table where they remained for seven days. They substituted
twelve fresh loaves for the old bread each Sabbath (Lev. 24:5-8). The term "bread of the
Presence" (v. 30) means these loaves lay before God's presence in the tabernacle. The
459Meyer, p. 307.
460Unger's Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Cherub," by Merrill F. Unger, p. 192.
461Youngblood, p. 122; cf. Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 455.
462Josephus, 3:6:5. See John T. Bunn, "The Ark of the Covenant," Biblical Illustrator 9:4 (Summer
1983):50-53. Geoffrey Kind, "Where Is the Ark of the Covenant?" Prophetic Witness 8:2 (February
1984):9-10, suggested several possible answers to the title question. See also A. H. Tolhurst, "Whatever
Happened to the Ark?" Ministry (June 1984), pp. 13-15.
463Waltke, An Old . . ., p. 460.
464Josephus, 3:6:5.
465William L. Lane, Hebrews 9—13, p. 220.
466Bill Mitchell, "Leviticus 24:6: The bread of the presence—rows or piles?" The Bible Translator 33:4
(October 1982):447-48.
Israelites did not offer this food for Yahweh to eat, as the pagans offered food to their
gods.467
They did so "as a symbol of the spiritual food which Israel was to prepare
(John 6:27; cf. 4:32, 34), a figurative representation of the calling it had
received from God."468
"The twelve loaves constituted a perpetual thank offering to God from the
twelve tribes for the blessings that they received from Him day by day."469
"By its opulence as by the containers and the food and drink placed
continuously upon it and periodically renewed, this Table announces: 'He
is here,' and there as one who gives sustenance."470
Perhaps the bread signified both God's provisions and Israel's vocation. Israel was to be a
source of spiritual food for the world (19:5-6).
". . . the table and the bread of the Presence have been taken as a type of
the church which stands in Christ's (the ark) presence."471
The lampstand 25:31-40
This piece of furniture was probably similar in size to the table of showbread (v. 39). It
stood opposite that table in the holy place against the south (left) wall. It weighed about
75 pounds. The tabernacle craftsmen fashioned it in the form of a stylized plant or tree. It
connoted life and fertility.
"The signification of the seven-armed candlestick is apparent from its

purpose, viz. to carry seven lamps, which were trimmed and filled with oil
every morning, and lighted every evening, and were to burn throughout
the night (chap. xxvii. 20, 21, xxx. 7, 8; Lev. xxiv. 3, 4). As the Israelites
were to prepare spiritual food in the shew-bread in the presence of
Jehovah, and to offer continually the fruit of their labour in the field of the
kingdom of God, as a spiritual offering to the Lord; so also were they to
present themselves continually to Jehovah in the burning lamps, as the
vehicles and media of light, as a nation letting its light shine in the
darkness of this world (cf. Matt. v. 14, 16; Luke xii. 35; Phil. ii. 15). The
oil, through which the lamps burned and shone, was, according to its
peculiar virtue in imparting strength to the body and restoring vital power,
a representation of the Godlike spirit, the source of all the vital power of
man; whilst the oil, as offered by the congregation of Israel, and devoted

469Davis, p. 255.
470Durham, p. 362.
to sacred purposes according to the command of God, is throughout the

Scriptures a symbol of the Spirit of God, by which the congregation of
God was filled with higher light and life. By the power of this Spirit,
Israel, in covenant with the Lord, was to let its light shine, the light of its
knowledge of God and spiritual illumination, before all the nations of the
earth. In its seven arms the stamp of the covenant relationship was
impressed upon the candlestick; and the almond-blossom with which it
was ornamented represented the seasonable offering of the flowers and
fruits of the Spirit, the almond-tree deriving its name . . . from the fact that
it is the earliest of all the trees in both its blossom and its fruit (cf. Jer.
1:11, 12). The symbolic character of the candlestick is clearly indicated in
the Scriptures. The prophet Zechariah (chap. 4) sees a golden candlestick
with seven lamps and two olive-trees, one on either side, from which the
oil-vessel is supplied; and the angel who is talking with him informs him
that the olive-trees are the two sons of oil, that is to say, the
representatives of the kingdom and priesthood, the divinely appointed
organs through which the Spirit of God was communicated to the
covenant nation. And in Rev. 1:20, the seven churches, which represent
the new people of God, i.e., the Christian Church, are shown to the holy
seer in the form of seven candlesticks standing before the throne of
God."472
"In company with the Table attesting Yahweh's Presence in bounty and the
Ark attesting Yahweh's Presence in mercy and revelation, the Lampstand
symbolized Yahweh's Presence in perpetual wakefulness, through the
reminder of the almond tree and the continual brightness of the living fire
(cf. Num 17:16-26 [17:1-11]). The watcher over Israel never nodded,
much less slept (Ps 121:4)."473
Like the showbread, the burning lamps may have symbolized both the character of God
and the calling of Israel. The seven-branched lampstand (menorah) has been and is a
popular symbol of Judaism and Israel even today around the world. A bas relief of the
lampstand that stood in Herod's Temple is still visible on an inside panel on the Arch of
Titus that stands in Rome. The Romans built this arch following Titus' destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
"The lampstand is commonly taken to be a type of Christ, usually on the

basis of Revelation 1:4 [cf. vv. 12-13]. It has also been taken as a
symbolic image of the Law."474
4. The tabernacle structure ch. 26

The tabernacle walls consisted of rigid supports with curtains hung over the boards.
These draperies also evidently formed its ceiling. Most commentators believe that the

473Durham, p. 365.
tabernacle was a single structure, but a few believe it consisted of three separate
structures one on top of the other. These structures were the tabernacle proper, a tent over
it made of goat hair, and another tent of skins that covered both of these structures.475
The tabernacle as a whole illustrates four different things according to Scripture. It

represents the heavens where God dwells and from which He manifests Himself (Heb.
4:14; 9:23-24), the work of Christ (John 2:19-21; Heb. 3:3-4; 8:2; 9:11-12), the individual
believer (1 Cor. 6:19), and the church (1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:6; 10:21).
The curtains 26:1-14

The extent to which these curtains were visible from inside the tabernacle is not clear in
the text and has been the subject of debate by commentators. They were of four colors
that some writers have interpreted as having symbolic significance on the basis of other
biblical references to and uses of these colors. The colors were white (holiness), blue
(heavenly origin and character), purple (royal glory), and crimson (blood and vigorous
life). Blue was also the color of garments that people of high social standing wore (1
Sam. 18:4; 24:4).
"Woven into the fabric of the curtains were images of cherubim,

apparently intended to recall the theme of 'paradise lost' by alluding to the
cherubim which guarded the 'Tree of Life' in Genesis 3:24."476
Some interpreters have seen in the goats' skins separation from evil. The later prophets in
Israel who dressed in goatskins called the people to holiness and separation from evil.
Some have felt the rams' skins dyed red taught the Israelites the importance of devotion
to God since God specified the use of rams in some offerings of worship. A slightly
different interpretation follows.
"Within the sanctuary, moving from the inside out, the curtains of fine
linen were visible only to the priests who served in the presence of him
who is purity and righteousness itself. The curtains of goats' hair were
reminders of the daily sin offering that was a kid from the goats (Num
28:15) and of our cleansing from sin (Lev 16). The covering of rams' skins
also recalled the sacrifice used in consecrating the priesthood (Lev. 8); and
it was deliberately dyed red, showing that the priesthood was set apart by
blood. Finally, the protective coating of the sea cows' [NIV; porpoise or
dolphin, NASB; badger, AV, NKJV; goat, RSV] hides marked a
protective separation between the dwelling place of God and the world."477
The total area covered by these tapestries was 45 feet long by 15 feet wide by 15 feet
high. The most holy place was a 15-foot cube and the holy place was 30 by 15 by 15 feet.
Thus the tabernacle structure was only about one and a half modern parking spaces wide
and a little more than two parking spaces long.
475Ibid.,
pp. 302-3.
The boards 26:15-25
It is not clear whether these boards were solid or simply "frames" (NIV). The meaning of
the Hebrew word (garesh, "boards") is uncertain. The latter view is probable.478 If they
were solid, the priests would not have been able to see the colorful curtains hanging down
over the outside of the tabernacle from within. If these boards were frames, they could
have seen them, or at least the most interior covering, through the walls. The embroidered
curtains seem to have been visible overhead in either case and may have reminded the
priests of God's celestial throne.
The bars 26:26-30
These were evidently rods that the priests threaded through the boards, or perhaps
through rings attached to the boards, horizontally to give the boards stability and to hold
them upright. They may have had significance to the Israelites, which some
commentators have speculated upon, or they may have simply served a practical purpose.
The veil 26:31-35
The veil and curtains were alike in design and construction. The veil hung to act as a wall
separating the holy and most holy places into two rooms. Some extrabiblical references to
a second veil between the holy and most holy places have created confusion.479 The Old
Testament is clear that there was just one. The Book of Hebrews used the veil in the
temple, which replaced this one in the tabernacle, as a symbol of Jesus Christ's body.
Torn in crucifixion, it opened the way for access into God's presence (Heb. 10:20; cf.
Matt. 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38; Luke 23:45-46).
The screen 26:36-37
This was a drapery, as were the veil and curtains, that served as the front doorway to the
tabernacle.
"The techniques used for the Tabernacle—gilded frames and beams, with
coverings—were those used for 'prefab' structures (religious and
otherwise) in Egypt for up to fifteen centuries before Moses."480
5. The tabernacle courtyard 27:1-19
In this section Moses described the altar of burnt offerings, the courtyard itself, and the
oil for the lamps on the lampstand that the priests evidently prepared in the courtyard.
478Durham, p. 372.
479See Henry van der Meulen, "One or two veils in front of the holy of holies?" Theologia Evangelica 18:1
(March 1985):22-27.
480Kitchen, The Bible. . ., pp. 85-86.
The altar of burnt offerings 27:1-8
The height of this altar was four and a half feet. This height has led some commentators
to suggest that a step-like bench or ledge may have surrounded it on which the priests
stood when they offered sacrifices.481 In view of the command prohibiting steps up to
Israel's altars (20:26), a ramp seems more probable (cf. Lev. 9:22). However there may
have been neither a ramp nor steps. The altar had four horns (v. 2), one on each corner, to
which the priests applied blood ritually (29:12). People occasionally clung to this altar as
a place of refuge (cf. 1 Kings 1:50-51; 2:28). The priests also bound some animals to
these horns when they sacrificed them (Ps. 118:27). There was a grate (v. 4) halfway to
the ground inside the altar that allowed air to circulate under the sacrifices and ashes to
fall to the ground below. The "ledge" appears to have projected out from the altar about
half way up its sides. Perhaps the priests stood on this ledge while placing the offerings
on the altar, or the ledge may have been on the inside of the altar to hold the grate.
This altar received the offerings of the Israelites. God met the Israelite where he was, in
the courtyard, rather than where He was, within the veil. Nevertheless the Israelite had to
make a special effort to approach God by entering the courtyard to present his offering
(cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-20).
"The position of the Altar just inside the entrance to the court made it as
clear as symbology could that the beginning of fellowship between God
and man must be in sacrifice."482
The Book of Hebrews viewed this altar as a prototype of the better altar, which is Jesus
Christ (Heb. 13:10).
The courtyard 27:9-19
The courtyard was 50 cubits wide by 100 cubits long (75 feet by 150 feet, half the length
of an American football field). This area is about the size of a modest home site in the
United States. The curtains that formed its perimeter were only half as high as those
surrounding the tabernacle building (7 feet instead of 15 feet). So the Israelites outside
the courtyard could see the top part of the tabernacle building.
"All its vessels were of copper-brass, which, being allied to the earth in
both colour and material, was a symbolic representation of the earthy side
of the kingdom of God; whereas the silver of the capitals of the pillars,
and of the hooks and rods which sustained the hangings, as well as the
white colour of the byssus-hangings, might point to the holiness of this
site for the kingdom of God."483
481E.g.,Keil and Delitzsch, 2:186-87.

482Meyer, p. 349.
"The whole arrangement of the outer court, and in particular the placement
of the altar of sacrifice and the laver, speak pointedly of man's approach to
God."484
". . . this structure provided the same kind of physical separation between
the holy God and his people as did the mountain at Sinai (temporal
separation is also provided in the annual feasts and celebrations, e.g., the
yearly Day of Atonement, Lev 16)."485
"The court preserved the Tabernacle from accidental or intentional

profanation, and it gave the priests a certain measure of privacy for the
prosecution of their duties. Its presence was a perpetual reminder that man
should pause and consider, before he rushes into the presence of the Most
High [cf. Eccles. 5:2]."486
"The courtyard is the place of worship where the people could gather—
they entered his courts. If the courtyard does not interest us very much, it
did the Israelites. Here the sacrifices were made, the choirs sang, the
believers offered their praises, they had their sins forgiven, they came to
pray, they appeared on the holy days, and they heard from God. It was
sacred because God met them there; they left the 'world' so to speak and
came into his presence."487
6. The investiture of the priests 27:20—28:43

Here begins the revelation of those things that related to the Israelites' relationship with
God (27:20—30:38). The preceding section (25:10—27:19) emphasized the revelation of
the things that revealed God's character. The priesthood is the primary revelation in this
new section.
"The approach to the Holy One, both within the biblical tradition and
outside it, has always included some kind of mediatorial ministry, for it is
inherent in any kind of 'high religion' that an otherwise unbridgeable
chasm exist between ineffable deity and finite mankind.
"In earliest times, of course, Yahweh met directly with His creation, which
in turn communicated with Him in word and act. With the passing of time
and the rise of patriarchal familial and clan structures, the father of the
household functioned also as its priest, the minister who stood between the
family and its God. Finally—and even before the covenant at Sinai—there
had developed some kind of order of priests, as Exodus 19:22 expressly
declares."488
484Davis, p. 263.
486Meyer, p. 348.
488Merrill, "A Theology . . .," pp. 49-50.
The responsibilities of the priests in Israel fell into four primary categories.
1. They were responsible to maintain the holy place of the tabernacle. This included
burning incense each morning and evening, trimming and refilling the lamps each
evening, and replacing the showbread each Sabbath.
2. They also maintained the tabernacle courtyard. This involved offering sacrifices
each morning and evening and blessing the congregation after the daily sacrifice.
It also meant keeping the fire on the brazen altar burning always, and periodically
removing its ashes.
3. They were responsible to inspect and appraise people and sacrifices. These
included lepers, wives accused of adultery, and things dedicated to the sanctuary.
4. Finally, they were to teach and counsel the people. They were to communicate the
Mosaic Law to the congregation and decide difficult cases of law (cf. Lev. 11—
27).
The oil 27:20-21
These instructions concern the clear olive oil that the priests were to prepare for and use
in the tabernacle lamps. They form a transition from an emphasis on the tabernacle
furnishings to the priests' ministry that follows.
The priests had to trim and refill the lamps on the lampstand in the holy place every
evening. There was light in the holy place all night (cf. Lev. 24:3; 1 Sam. 3:3).
"Oil . . . is clearly a symbol of the Holy Spirit in Scripture."489
"It was a favourite saying of [Robert Murray] M'Cheyne when discussing

the method of pulpit preparation, that only beaten oil might be used in the
sanctuary, intimating that careful preparation was required for all material
presented for the consideration of our hearers. It is not a light thing to
speak to men for God, and none of us should essay the holy task apart
from very careful preparation; but when we have done our utmost in this,
we must depend on the kindling of the Divine fire. Ours is the beaten oil at
the best, but what is that, unless the High Priest Himself shall cause the
lamp to burn?"490
The Spirit would, on the one hand, be a perpetual source of light for them. On the other
hand, He would also empower God's people to be a perpetual light to the nations (cf. Isa.
42:6).
489Davis, p. 264. See John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, pp. 21-22; and Ryrie, p. 27.
490Meyer, pp. 323-24.
The priests 28:1-5

Aaron had been functioning as a priest (Heb. cohen; 4:16). Now Moses officially
appointed him and his sons to this office. God apparently specified Aaron because he was
the brother of Moses whom God had already designated as the covenant mediator.491
Before the sinful priests could approach their holy God, they had to cover their
uncleanness symbolically with holy clothes. The priests had to wear these garments when
they served in the tabernacle ritual, but they could not wear them at other times (35:19;
Lev. 16:4, 23, 24). The fact that the workmen who made these garments needed to be
wise and skillful (v. 3) indicates the importance that God placed on their construction.
Aaron's priesthood prefigured that of Jesus Christ (Heb. 5:5; 7:26; 9:11).
The ephod 28:6-14

The ephod (a transliteration of the Hebrew word) was the most important and outermost
garment of the high priest. It was an apron-like piece of clothing that fit over his robe (vv.
31-35).
"The duty of the high priest was to enter into the presence of God and
make atonement for the people as their mediator. To show that as mediator
he brought the nation to God, the names of the twelve tribes were
engraved upon precious stones on the shoulders of the ephod. The
precious stones, with their richness and brilliancy, formed the most
suitable earthly substratum to represent the glory into which Israel was to
be transformed as the possession of Jehovah (xix. 5); whilst the colours
and material of the ephod, answering to the colours and texture of the
hangings of the sanctuary, indicated the service performed in the sanctuary
by the person clothed with the ephod, and the gold with which the
coloured fabric was worked, the glory of that service."492
Josephus wrote that the names of Jacob's six oldest sons were on the stone on the right
shoulder, and the names of his six youngest sons were on the stone on the left.493
The breastplate 28:15-30

The breastplate was a pocket of material of the same fabric as the ephod. Twelve precious
stones were fastened to the front of it, and two objects, the Urim and Thummim, which
were probably stones also, lay within it.
The 12 jewels represented the 12 tribes. Each one was unique. God later called the
Israelites His jewels (Mal. 3:17). The high priest carried the tribes on his heart (v. 30) as
well as on his shoulders. The heart refers to the seat of feelings and affections in the Old
Testament.
491Merrill,
"A Theology . . .," p. 50.
493Josephus, 3:7:5.
"The purpose of the breastpiece was 'for making decisions' (v. 15). The
Urim and Thummim, deposited in the pouch, were sacred lots used as the
'means of making decisions' (v. 30). The word 'Urim' begins with the first
letter of the Hebrew alphabet and 'Thummim' begins with the last letter, so
the lots were probably restricted to giving either positive or negative
responses to questions asked of them. Strengthening that likelihood is the
fact that the phrase 'Urim and Thummim' is best translated into English as
'curses and perfections,' meaning that if 'Urim' dominated when the lots
were cast the answer would be no but if 'Thummim' dominated the answer
would be yes."494
The robe 28:31-35
The high priest also wore this garment. It was his basic garment over which he put the
ephod. It covered him completely so his natural nakedness did not appear (cf. Gen. 3:21).
God may have intended the pomegranates and bells on the hem of the robe (vv. 33-34) to
remind the Israelites of God's commandments. The pomegranate was probably a symbol
of the spiritually nourishing quality of God's Word (cf. Prov. 25:11; Ps. 19:8-11; 119:25,
43, 50; Deut. 8:3; Prov. 9:8; Eccles. 12:9-11, 13). The bell was evidently a symbol of the
sounding or proclamation of God's Word through testimony.495 Some interpreters have
felt pomegranates and bells represented fruitfulness and joy. Others have seen them as
representing the fruits and gifts of God's Spirit.496
"A popular Jewish interpretation of 28:35 taught that one end of a long
rope should be tied to the high priest's ankle before he entered the Holy
Place. Since his slightest movement would cause the bells to tinkle, the
people outside would assume that all was well as long as they could hear
them. But if the bells fell silent for a time, the people outside would
naturally assume that their priest had either fainted or died. They would
then tug on the end of the rope to pull him out, making it unnecessary for
unauthorized persons to enter the Holy Place in order to remove his
body."497
The gold plate 28:36-38
A plaque of pure gold was attached to the front of the high priest's turban. It bore the
engraved words, "Holy to the LORD."
"Through this inscription, which was fastened upon his head-dress of

brilliant white, the earthly reflection of holiness, he was crowned as the
495See Keil and Delitzsch, 2:202-203.
496Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 306, recorded several other possible explanations of these
decorations.
sanctified of the Lord (Ps. cvi. 16), and endowed with the power to
exterminate the sin which clung to the holy offerings of the people on
account of the unholiness of their nature, so that the gifts of the nation
became well-pleasing to the Lord, and the good pleasure of God was
manifested to the nation."498
"It was necessary also that he should be a holy man. . . . It was as though
they said: 'We are conscious that our representative may fail in personal
holiness, but on that golden plate of purest metal we have placed our ideal,
the high-water mark, which we desire our priest should attain.'"499
"'Set apart for Yahweh' refers not alone, indeed not even primarily to
'Aaron' and his successors, as v 38 makes plain. It is Israel that is 'set apart
for Yahweh,' 'Aaron' of course among Israel and representing Israel . . ."500
The tunic, turban, and sash 28:39

These items completed the high priest's wardrobe. The tunic was an undergarment, the
turban covered his head, and the sash served as a belt.
The garments of the lesser priests 28:40-43

The clothing described in these verses appears to be the garments the priests other than
the high priest wore. All the priests ministered barefoot out of reverence for the holiness
of God (cf. 3:5; Josh. 5:15).
"This prescription for undergarments alludes to and reminds one of the

clothing which God made for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden to
cover their nakedness (Ge 3:21)."501
"The essential point of the priestly vestments is the central point of all the
instructions concerning the media of worship: Yahweh is present, and
Israel must respond to that Presence, be guided in that response, and be
reminded constantly in worship as in life of the reality of the Presence and
of the need for response."502
"There is much that can be derived from this chapter to form principles of
spiritual leadership; but the overall point can be worded this way: Those
whom God selects to minister to the congregation through intercessory
prayer, divine counsel, and sacrificial worship, must always represent the
holiness of Yahweh in their activities and demeanor."503

499Meyer, p. 359.
500Durham, p. 388.
502Durham, p. 389.
7. The consecration of the priests 29:1-37

The Israelites carried out the instructions given here later. The record of this seven-day
ritual appears in Leviticus 8. I shall defer comment since Moses explained the offerings
and procedures specified in this chapter more fully in Leviticus. The facts that God
specified this ceremony in such detail and Moses recorded it at such length point to its
importance for Israel.
"To Israel had been granted the privilege of being a special people; to
Aaron and his sons was granted now the privilege of being a special
mediating instrument between that people and Yahweh, their Lord. A
covenant meal was always part of such an arrangement (cf. 24:11; 32:6),
and that is precisely what is implied in the sharing of the ram of
consecration by Yahweh and the priests."504
All the priests bathed, representing the necessity of cleanliness before God. The priests
had sacrificial blood applied to their ears, thumbs, and big toes (v. 20). This symbolized
their complete consecration: to hear the word of God, to serve as mediators, and to walk
as an example to others. They experienced sprinkling with blood signifying their
complete sanctification. Their anointing with oil (v. 21) represented their endowment
with power by God's Spirit for divine service.
"The investiture of the high priest consisted of nine acts (Lev. 8:7-9),
whereas that of the ordinary priests involved but three."505
8. The service of the priests 29:38—30:38

The daily burnt offering, meal offering, and drink offering 29:38-46
The priests began to offer these sacrifices as soon as the tabernacle was complete (ch.
40).
In the offering of a young lamb each morning and each evening with flour, oil, and wine,
the Israelites consecrated their lives afresh daily to the Lord. This was an offering of
worship and expiation (i.e., the removal of sin, Lev. 1:4). It insured Israel's continuing
communion with her God.
". . . thus the day was opened and closed with gifts to Yahweh, from
whom all gifts were believed to come."506
The altar of incense and the incense offering 30:1-10

The place of this altar in the tabernacle has been a problem for some readers of the Book
of Hebrews. Hebrews 9:4 can be understood as describing its location as being inside the
holy of holies with the ark. The writer of Hebrews probably meant that the veil, not the
504Merrill,
"A Theology . . .," p. 51.
505Davis,
pp. 278-79.
506Durham, p. 396.
holy of holies, had the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant connected with it
(Heb. 9:3-4). These pieces of furniture were on either side of the veil. Describing it this
way clarified that the writer meant the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies.
Old Testament passages say that the incense altar was inside the holy place with the
golden lampstand and the table of showbread (cf. 30:6; 40:3-5, 21-27). Most
commentators on Exodus locate it in the holy place.507 Furthermore, Leviticus 16:2 and
Hebrews 9:7 say that the high priest went into the holy of holies only once a year on the
day of Atonement. Another view is that the altar of incense was in the holy of holies.508
The priests would offer incense on this altar each morning and each evening, and the
incense would burn all the time. The priests presented the daily burnt offering and the
daily incense offering together each day. Both were demonstrations of constant
uninterrupted devotion to God. Students of Exodus have almost universally recognized
the incense offered as a symbol of prayer that ascends to God (cf. Rev. 5:8). It was a
sweet aroma in His nostrils and was essential to the maintenance of the divine-human
relationship.
"Morning and evening prayers have been the habit of all ages. With the
one we go forth to our labour till the evening, asking that our Father will
give us His God-speed and guidance and protection. With the other we
entreat forgiveness and mercy."509
"He who offers no sacrifice in his prayer, who does not sacrifice his self-
will, does not really pray."510
The horns of this altar (v. 10), as well as the horns on the altar of burnt offerings (the
brazen altar), probably symbolized strength.511
Once a year Aaron applied the atonement blood on this altar to cleanse it afresh for
another year (v. 10). The description "most holy to the LORD" means the altar could not
be used for any other purpose than what is stated here.
The directions concerning the sanctuary conclude with this section.
The atonement money 30:11-16

The directions regarding the tabernacle opened with instructions concerning contributions
for its construction (25:1-9). They close with this directive that every Israelite 20 years or
507E.g., Cassuto, p. 391; Keil and Delitzsch, 2:208; Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 472; Hyatt, p. 292; Cole, p. 205;
Ellison, p. 162; Maxie D. Dunnam, Exodus, p. 327; Hannah, p. 154; and Durham, p. 399. This is also the
position of the writers of the articles on the tabernacle and the temple in The New Bible Dictionary, the
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, and the Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia.
508J. Dwight Pentecost, A Faith That Endures: The Book of Hebrews Applied to the Real Issues of Life, pp.
139-40.
509Meyer, p. 375.
510Ibid., p. 387.
511Margit Sring, "The Horn-Motifs of the Bible and the Ancient Near East," Andrews University Seminary
Studies 22:3 (Autumn 1984):334.
older was to pay a flat fee of half a shekel during Israel's census for the tabernacle's
maintenance (Num. 1:2; 26:2). Everyone was to pay the same amount because the cost of
everyone's atonement was the same in the Lord's sight.
"It was no ordinary tribute, therefore, which Israel was to pay to Jehovah
as its King, but an act demanded by the holiness of the theocratic
covenant. As an expiation for souls, it pointed to the unholiness of Israel's
nature, and reminded the people continually, that by nature it was
alienated from God, and could only remain in covenant with the Lord and
live in His kingdom on the ground of His grace, which covered its sin."512
Israel's leaders collected this money whenever they took a census. In time it became a
yearly "temple tax" (Matt. 17:24). A half shekel weighed .2 ounces (6 grams), and it was
silver. "Money" in verse 16 is literally "silver." In our Lord's day it amounted to two days
wages (Matt. 17:24). Evidently the taking of a census incurred some guilt (v. 12). Perhaps
it reflected lack of complete trust in God to multiply the nation as He had promised (cf. 2
Sam. 24).
"Do you recognize that you belong to a redeemed world? Even if all do
not avail themselves of the Redemption which has been achieved, yet it is
available for all; and more benefits than we can ever estimate are always
accruing since God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten
Son."513
The brazen laver 30:17-21

The laver was a large reservoir for the water that the priests used to wash with as they
performed their duties. It stood between the brazen altar and the sanctuary. Its presence
there symbolized the fact that cleansing is necessary after the making of atonement and
before the enjoyment of fellowship with God.
"The necessity of daily cleansing on the part of those who are engaged
even in the most holy service, and of all who would approach God, is so
obvious as hardly to require comment. The body washed with pure water
has for its counterpart the daily cleansing of the soul, without which no
man may minister in the Divine presence [cf. John 13:10]."514
The "base" (v. 18) was probably not a pedestal but a smaller vessel used to draw as much
water out of the laver as the priest might need to wash. The priests washed their feet as
well as their hands (v. 21).
The anointing oil 30:22-33

The special mixture God specified here was for use only in anointing the tabernacle, its
furnishings, its utensils, and the priests. Four fragrant spices blended with olive oil to

513Meyer, p. 391.
514Ibid., p. 351.
produce an excellent perfume. It was holy (different) in that the Israelites used it
exclusively for this special purpose in the service of God. The priests could use it for no
other purpose in Israel.
The incense 30:34-38

As with the anointing oil, only a certain mixture of four ingredients was acceptable as
incense for burning on the incense altar. Similarly not just any prayer is acceptable to
God; only prayers offered as He has instructed will be acceptable (cf. 1 John 5:14).
"Stacte is a fragrant resin obtained from some species of cistus, or

'rockrose.' Onycha is the horny plate that covers a species of mussel found
in the lakes of India which, when burned, emits a musky odor. Galbanum
is a pleasantly aromatic gum resin derived from certain umbelliferous
plants. Frankincense (from the Old French for 'pure incense'), as used by
the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, was a gum resin now called olibanum
which was derived from certain trees of the genus boswellia found
growing on the limestone of South Arabia and Somaliland. Thus, three of
the four ingredients in the incense burned on the golden altar were gum
resins. Gum resins are mixtures of gum and resin obtained from plants or
trees by incision. Resins burn readily because they contain volatile
oils."515
9. The builders of the tabernacle 31:1-11

Chapter 31 summarizes what God required for His people to approach Him. God
appointed the men who would be responsible for interpreting Moses' instructions about
the tabernacle and constructing it. He filled them with His Spirit so they would make
choices consistent with His will (v. 3).
Bezalel ("In the shadow of God") was evidently Miriam's grandson.516 Oholiab ("The
Father is my tent") was his assistant. God endowed both men with natural ability as well
as with the Holy Spirit to do the work He had appointed for them (cf. Acts 6:3).
"Though they were skilled, the narrative emphasizes clearly that they were
to do the work of building the tabernacle by means of the skills that the
Spirit of God would give them. There is an important parallel here with
God's work of Creation in Genesis 1. Just as God did his work of Creation
by means of his Spirit (Ge 1:2—2:3), so also Israel was to do their work of
building the tabernacle by God's Spirit.
"The parallels between God's work in Creation and Israel's work on the
tabernacle are part of the Pentateuch's larger emphasis on the importance
of the work of God's Spirit among his people. . . . It is of interest here to
note that the two key characters in the Pentateuch who provide a clear
515John V. Myers, "What Was 'Brimstone?'" Kronos 9:1 (Fall 1983):58.

516Josephus, 3:6:1.
picture of genuine obedience to God's will, Joseph and Joshua, are

specifically portrayed in the narrative as those who are filled with the
Spirit of God (Ge 41:38; Dt 34:9)."517
10. The sign of the Sabbath 31:12-18
"As a sign of the Noahic covenant is the rainbow (Gen. 9:13), and as the
sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision (Gen. 17:11), the sign of
the Mosaic covenant is the observance and celebration of the Sabbath day
(Exod. 31:13, 17)."518
God intended this sign to teach Israel and the other nations that as redeemed people the
Israelites had already entered into a measure of rest. They were partakers of God's rest.
Observance of the Sabbath was unique to Israel. It distinguished Israel from all other
nations. So important was its observance that the Israelite who failed to observe it died
(v. 15). This sign was to continue throughout all succeeding generations (v. 13) as long as
God continued to work through Israel as His primary instrument (cf. Rom. 10:4; Heb.
9:10).
"The analogy between God's work of Creation and Israel's construction of

the tabernacle is made explicit by the reference to the Sabbath at the close
of the narrative."519
Whereas God did not command Christians to observe the Sabbath, the Scriptures do teach
the importance of periodic physical rest regardless of the dispensation in which we may
live (cf. Mark 6:31; 14:41; Rev. 6:11).
"We don't have to be servants twenty-four hours a day, seven days a

week."520
This section concludes the record of what Moses received from God during the 40 days
and nights he was in the mountain that began in 25:1.
Moses wrote the instructions concerning the tabernacle so they parallel what he wrote
about the Creation. Note some of the similarities in the narratives.521

518Youngblood, pp. 112-13. The sign of the New Covenant is the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark
14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25).
520John F. Alexander, "Sabbath Rest," The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8. See Jeffrey Siker-Gieseler,
"The Theology of the Sabbath in the Old Testament: A Canonical Approach," Studia Biblica et Theologica
11:1 (April 1981):5-20, in which the author brought together and interpreted the references to the Sabbath
in the Old Testament.
521Adapted from Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., pp. 289-90, 306, 309.
CREATION (GEN. 1—2) TABERNACLE (EXOD. 25—31)

The subject of the narrative is the The subject of the narrative is the re-
establishment of God's good creation. establishment of God's good creation.
The heavens and earth are the arena for the The tabernacle is the arena for the
creation of divine-human fellowship. restoration of divine-human fellowship.
God's Spirit was the enabling power in God's Spirit was the enabling power in the
creation (Gen. 1:2—2:3). construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3,
6).
Structurally the creation account consists Structurally the tabernacle account consists
of seven acts each marked by divine of seven acts each introduced by divine
speech ("And God said," Gen. 1:3, 6, 9, speech ("And the LORD said," Exod. 25:1;
14, 20, 24, 26). 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12).
God made Adam and Eve according to a Moses made the tabernacle according to a
specific pattern: the image of God (Gen. specific pattern: a heavenly reality (Exod.
1:26-27). 25:9).
The Garden of Eden contained gold and The tabernacle contained gold and jewels,
jewels, and cherubim guarded it (Gen. and cherubim guarded it (Exod. 25:3, 7,
2:12a, 12b; 3:24). 18).
When creation was complete, God When the tabernacle was complete, Moses
inspected and evaluated all that He had inspected and evaluated all that was done
done (Gen. 1:31) and uttered a blessing (Exod. 39:43a) and uttered a blessing
(Gen. 1:28). (Exod. 39:43b).
God rested on the seventh day at the end of God told the Israelites to rest on the
the creation narrative (Gen. 2:1-3). seventh day at the end of the tabernacle
narrative (Exod. 31:12-18).
A fall followed the creation narrative A fall followed the tabernacle narrative
(Gen. 3). (Exod. 32).
This fall resulted in the breaking of the This fall resulted in the breaking of the
Adamic Covenant (Gen. 3:14-19). Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 33:1-5).
God covered Adam and Eve's nakedness God ordered the covering of the priests'
(Gen. 3:21). nakedness (Exod. 28:42).
D. THE BREAKING AND RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT CHS. 32—34
"If a narrative paradigmatic of what Exodus is really about were to be

sought, Exod 32—34 would be the obvious first choice.
"That these chapters are paradigmatic of Israel's relationship with Yahweh

throughout the OT is also obvious, and the farthest thing from
coincidence."522
522Durham, p. 418.
1. The failure of Israel ch. 32

The scene shifts now and we see what was happening in the Israelite camp while Moses
was in the heights of Sinai receiving the instructions for the Israelites' worship. The
people were apostatizing and were devising their own form of worship.
Israel's apostasy 32:1-6

Apostasy means "to stand away from" something (Gr. apostasis). This word describes a
departure. An apostate is someone who has departed from something. In the religious
sense the word refers to extreme departure from God's will. "Apostate" is not necessarily
a synonym for unbeliever. The person who departs from God's will may be a believer or
an unbeliever. The term refers to obedience, not salvation. Most of the apostates in Israel
were apparently believers since the Bible consistently regards Israel as a whole as the
people of God.
"Throughout the remainder of the Pentateuch, the incident of the worship

of the golden calf cast a dark shadow across Israel's relationship with God,
much the same way as the account of the Fall in Genesis 3 marked a major
turning point in God's dealing with humankind."523
It has always been hard for God's people to wait for Him (cf. 1 Sam. 8:4-5; Ps. 27:14;
37:7; 62:5; et al.). When Moses lingered on the mountain, the people decided to worship
a new god (v. 1) and make a new covenant. They did not wait for guidance from God.
This reflects a shallow commitment to Him and their leader, Moses. Evidently they
concluded that Moses had perished in the fire on Mt. Sinai and decided to select a new
leader. Moses was a god to Israel in the sense that he was their leader (4:16). Now they
turned from Moses as their leader to Aaron.
Some commentators have interpreted Aaron's instruction that the Israelites should
sacrifice their jewelry and ornaments (v. 2) as designed to discourage their rebellion.524 If
this was his intent, he failed (v. 3). It seems more probable that Aaron approved of their
plan.
Aaron could have intended the golden calf to represent a god other than Yahweh or
Yahweh Himself.
"In the present passage the term gods, or rather god [Elohim], represented
in the golden calf, seems to be understood as an attempt to represent the
God of the covenant with a physical image. The apostasy of the golden
calf, therefore, was idolatry, not polytheism. Indeed, throughout Scripture
Israel was repeatedly warned about the sin of idolatry."525

524See Kennedy, p. 138; Meyer, p. 421; and Jacob, p. 940.
525Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 311. See also Keil and Delitzsch, 2:222; and David E. Fass, "The
Molten Calf: Judgment, Motive, and Meaning," Judaism 39:2 (Spring 1990):171-83.
"It is precisely the attempt to worship Yahweh by means he has already

declared totally unacceptable that makes the sin of the golden calf so
destructive, far more so than a simple shift of allegiance to 'other' or
'foreign' gods."526
The calf provided a visible symbol that the Israelites could and did identify as their
deliverer. The English word "idol" derives from the Greek eidolon, meaning "something
to be seen." The Apis bull was such a symbol in Egyptian religion. The Egyptians viewed
this animal as the vehicle on which a god rode in power, and as such they identified it as
divine itself. Sacred bulls or calves were common in the ancient Near East because of this
identification. Patterning their worship of Yahweh after the Egyptians' worship of their
god of the sun, Osiris, the Israelites were saying that this was their way of worshipping
Yahweh.
"The bull seems to have had manifold meanings in the iconography of the
Near East. It symbolized the god. It expressed attributes of a god. It
represented a pedestal for the god. Each of these meanings is important in
understanding the cult of the golden calves in Israel's religious
experience."527
The altar and feast that accompanied the construction of the idol (v. 5) support the
contention that Aaron was leading the people in a celebration of a new covenant. His
disobedience to the second commandment (20:2-6), which he had received by this time,
resulted in his returning to an Egyptian form of worship that repudiated Yahweh's will.
The "play" that followed the feast seems to have been wicked (cf. v. 25).
"The verb translated 'to play' suggests illicit and immoral sexual activity
which normally accompanied fertility rights found among the Canaanites
who worshipped the god Baal."528
"That the sin of Aaron and the people was tantamount to covenant
repudiation is clear from the account of the making of the calf. The calf
was hailed as 'the god . . . who brought you up out of Egypt' (Ex. 32:4),
the exact language of the historical prologue of the Sinaitic Covenant in
which Yahweh described the basis of His authority to be Israel's God
(20:2). Moreover, Aaron built an altar for the purpose of covenant
affirmation and ceremony (v. 5), precisely as Moses had done previously
on the people's commitment to the covenant arrangement (24:4). Aaron's
proclamation concerning a festival and its implementation on the
following day (32:5-6) was again identical to the celebration that attended
the mutual acceptance of the covenant terms under Moses (24:11)."529
526Durham, p. 421.
527Stephen Von Wyrick, "Israel's Golden Calves," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):10. This is a very
fine summary article. See also Amihai Mazar, "Bronze Bull Found in Israelite 'High Place' From the Time
of the Judges," Biblical Archaeology Review 9:5 (September-October 1983):34-40.
528Davis, p. 285.
"From Aaron's viewpoint it was merely a matter of iconography,

representing God by a bull and in that way holding 'a festival to I AM'
(Exod. 32:5). But from the people's viewpoint, as seen from the command
to Aaron 'make us gods' (v. 1), they were turning to a pantheon of gods,
represented by a bull god, to lead them."530
Many years later Israel's King Jeroboam I re-established worship of the golden calves,
and this practice became a great stumbling block to Israel (1 Kings 12:28-31).
"The calf represented Yahweh on their terms. Yahweh had made clear
repeatedly that he would be received and worshiped only on his terms."531
Moses' intercession 32:7-14

God's recounting the news of the golden calf to Moses gives the reader the divine
perspective on Israel's sin. Moses stressed three points in this pericope.
"These three points—idolatry of the golden calf, Israel's stiff-necked

refusal to obey, and God's compassion—provide the basis of the
subsequent narratives and God's further dealings with this people. Though
a great act of God's judgment follows immediately (vv. 27-35), the central
themes of the subsequent narratives focus on God's compassion and a new
start for Israel."532
God called the Israelites Moses' people (v. 7) probably because they had repudiated the
covenant and God was therefore no longer their God. God regarded the Israelites'
sacrificing before the calf as worship of it (v. 8).
God offered to destroy the rebellious Israelites and to make Moses' descendants into a
great nation (v. 10). He may have meant that He would destroy that older generation of
Israelites immediately. God was proposing action that would have been consistent with
His promises to the patriarchs and the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Num.
14:12). This offer constituted a test of Moses' ministry as Israel's mediator. For Moses
this test was real, even though the proposed destruction of Israel lay outside God's plan
(cf. the promises to Abraham; Gen. 49:10). Similarly, God told Abraham to offer up Isaac
even though God had previously told him that Isaac would be his designated heir. And
Jesus offered Himself to Israel as her king even though His death on the cross, according
to "the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), had to precede the
establishment of His kingdom. Moses passed the test. He did not forsake his people but
urged God to have mercy on them.
In his model intercessory prayer (vv. 11-13) Moses appealed to God on the basis of
several things: God's previous work for Israel (v. 11), God's glory and reputation (v. 12),
and God's word (v. 13).
530Waltke,An Old . . ., p. 469.

531Durham, p. 442.
The reference to God changing His mind (v. 14) has been a problem to many Bible
readers. The expression implies no inconsistency or mutability in the character of God.
He does not vacillate but always does everything in harmony with His own character.
Within the plan of God, however, He has incorporated enough flexibility so that in most
situations there are a number of options that are acceptable to Him. In view of Moses'
intercession God proceeded to take a different course of action than He had previously
intended.533
"In only two of the thirty-eight instances in the OT is this word used of
men repenting. God's repentance or 'relenting' is an anthropomorphism (a
description of God in human forms) that aims at showing us that he can
and does change in his actions and emotions to men when given proper
grounds for doing so, and thereby he does not change in his basic integrity
or character (cf. Pss 99:6; 106:45; Jer 18:8; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:10;
James 5:16). The grounds for the Lord's repenting are three: (1)
intercession (cf. Amos 7:1-6); (2) repentance of the people (Jer 18:3-11;
Jonah 3:9-10); and (3) compassion (Deut 32:36; Judg 2:18; 2 Sam
24:16)."534
Advocates of the "openness of God" overemphasize this change in God and conclude that
He did not just relent from a former proposed course of action but changed in a more
fundamental way. They say He took a completely different direction that He had not
anticipated previously. This view stresses the free will of man, in this case Moses'
intercession, at the expense of the sovereignty of God.
Aaron's excuse 32:15-24

Moses broke the tablets of the law (v. 19) symbolizing the fact that Israel had broken its
covenant with Yahweh. He then proceeded to destroy the golden calf, the symbol of the
illicit covenant into which they had entered (cf. 2 Kings 23:15). By treating the calf
image as he did (v. 20) Moses was dishonoring as well as destroying it.
". . . the biblical description of the destruction of the Golden Calf

constitutes an Israelite development of an early literary pattern that was
employed in Canaan to describe the total annihilation of a detested
enemy."535
Moses probably ordered the people to drink the polluted water for the following reason.
". . . to set forth in a visible manner both the sin and its consequences. The
sin was poured as it were into their bowels along with the water, as a
533See John Munro, "Prayer to a Sovereign God," Interest 56:2 (February 1990):20-21; Thomas L.
Constable, "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change," in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-
113; and Robert B. Chisholm Jr., "Does God 'Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-
December 1995):387-99; Hannah, p. 156.
535Samuel Loewenstamm, "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf," Biblica 48 (1967):485.
symbolical sign that they would have to bear it and atone for it, just as a
woman who was suspected of adultery was obliged to drink the curse-
water (Num. 5:24)."536
"In this manner the thing they had worshiped would become a product of
their own waste, the very epitome of worthlessness and impurity."537
Some writers have suggested that this water with the gold dust suspended in it would
have been red and is a type of the blood of Christ.538 This view lacks support in the text.
The writer said nothing about Moses offering it to the Lord to make atonement for the
sins of the Israelites. The people drank it; they did not offer it to God (v. 20).
Verse 24 suggests Aaron may have formed the calf by casting it in a mold, but verse 4
gives the impression that he carved it out of a shapeless mass.539 The best solution seems
to be that Aaron made this calf like similar Egyptian idols. He probably built a wooden
frame and then overlaid it with gold that he shaped (cf. Isa. 30:22).
Aaron tried to shift the blame for his actions to the people (cf. Gen. 3:12-13).
"A woman of society and fashion will say, 'I admit that I am not what I
might be, but then look at my set; it is the furnace that did it.' A man will
doubt God, question the Bible and truth, and excuse himself by saying, 'It
is not I, it is the drift of modern tendency; it is the furnace that did it.'
'There came out this calf.'"540
The Levites' loyalty 32:25-29
The Levites were Moses' closest kinsmen. Perhaps it was for this reason, as well as their
loyalty to the Lord, that they sided with Moses. Their decision and obedience (v. 28)
demonstrated their faith in God. They chose to go the way of His appointed leader,
Moses, instead of following their rebellious brethren.
God's punishment of the rebels was severe (v. 27) because of the seriousness of their
offense. It was also merciful; only 3,000 of the 600,000 men died (v. 28).
The Levites' blessing was God's choice of their tribe as the priestly tribe in Israel (Num.
3:12-13). The nation as a whole forfeited its right to be a kingdom of priests (19:6) by its
rebellion here.

537Merrill,Deuteronomy, p. 196. Cf. Jacob, p. 950.
538E.g., M. R. DeHaan, The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages, pp. 61-63.
539See Loewenstamm; idem, "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf—a Rejoinder," Biblica 56
(1975):330-43; and Stanley Gevirtz, "Heret in the Manufacture of the Golden Calf," Biblica 65 (1984):377-
81.
540Meyer, p. 422.
"The idiom 'fill the hands' [the literal meaning of "dedicate yourselves,"
NASB, or "you have been set apart," NIV, v. 29] means 'institute to a
priestly office,' 'install,' 'inaugurate,' and the like."541
Moses' second intercession 32:30-35

To make atonement (v. 30) means to obtain a covering for sin.
We see Moses' great love for the Israelites as their mediator in his willingness to die for
them (cf. Rom. 9:3). Being blotted out of God's book may refer to physical death.
Alternatively the book could refer to the register of those loyal to Yahweh and thereby
deserving His special blessing (cf. Ps. 69:28; Isa. 4:3; Ezek. 13:9; Dan. 12:1; Mal.
3:16).542 God explained a principle of His dealings with people here. Individual sin brings
individual responsibility that leads finally to individual judgment (cf. Ezek. 18:4). God
was not saying that everyone will bear the punishment for his own sins precluding
substitution, but everyone is responsible for his own sins. He chose not to take Moses' life
as a substitute for the guilty in Israel since this would not have been just. Moses being a
sinner himself could not have served as a final acceptable substitute for other sinners in
any case.
God promised Moses that He would not abandon His people for their sin (v. 34), but
when their rebellion was full (at Kadesh Barnea, Num. 14:27-35) He smote those of them
who remained (v. 35).543
2. The re-establishment of fellowship ch. 33

Breaking God's covenant resulted in the Israelites' separation from fellowship with Him.
It did not terminate their relationship with Him, but it did hinder their fellowship with
Him. Similarly when Christians sin we do not cease to be God's people, but our
fellowship with the Lord suffers.
"Moses had now returned to Mount Sinai and there God spoke with him
again. The text has several indications that the author now wants to show
that Israel's relationship with God had been fundamentally affected by
their 'great sin' of worshiping the golden calf. All was not the same. The
narrative shows that there was now a growing distance between God and
Israel that had not been there before. Each of the following sections of
narrative demonstrates specifically the changes that have occurred in
God's relationship to Israel. We should also note that the Levites are
chosen in this narrative; in Numbers 3 they replace the firstborn Israelites
as priests. This represents a further change in Israel's relationship with
God in the Sinai covenant."544
541Hyatt,p. 310.
542Durham, p. 432.
543See Jonathan Master, "Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 45:4 (December 2002):585-98.
Notice some comparisons and contrasts between the narrative of the original giving of the
covenant and this narrative that describes the renewal of the covenant.545
THE GIVING OF THE COVENANT THE RESTORING OF THE COVENANT

(EXOD. 20—31) (EXOD. 33—34)
All the people were to be priests (19:5-6). Only the Levites would be priests (32:29).
Moses ascended Mt. Sinai and God spoke Moses ascended Mt. Sinai and God spoke
with him there while the people waited with him there while the people waited
below (19:20). below (32:31).
God sent His angel to destroy Israel's God sent His angel lest He destroy Israel
enemies (23:23). (33:2-5).
The tabernacle in the center of the camp Another "tent of meeting" outside the
was to be the "tent of meeting" where God camp was where God met with Moses and
would meet with the people (25:8; 27:21; Joshua only (33:7).
28:43; 29:42-43).
God displayed His glory for all the people Only Moses could see God's glory
to see on Mt. Sinai (24:16-17). partially (33:18-23), and the people only
saw God's glory reflected on Moses' face
(34:29).
God covered Moses' face lest he see too Moses covered his face lest the people see
much of God's glory (33:18-23). too much of God's glory (34:34-35).
God revealed His glory to test the people God revealed His glory to show His grace
and to keep them from sinning (20:20). and compassion (33:19; 34:6-7).
God wrote the Ten Commandments on Moses wrote the Ten Commandments on
stone tablets (Deut. 10:1-4). stone tablets (34:28).
God gave the Ten Commandments (20:2- God gave the "ten words" (34:27-28).
17).
The structure of the narrative begins and The structure of the narrative begins and
ends with warnings against idolatry ends with warnings against idolatry
(20:22-23; 23:13) and instructions for (34:11-17) and instructions for proper
proper worship (20:24-26; 23:14-19). worship (34:11-26).
Moses expressed amazement when he saw The people expressed amazement when
the people (32:19). they saw Moses (34:30).
33:1-6 God would not now dwell in the midst of the Israelites as He intended to
do in the tabernacle because they had repudiated His covenant with them
(v. 3).
The announcement of the change in God's relation to Israel and the
consequent loss of blessing led the people to mourn and sacrifice out of
545Adapted from ibid., pp. 313-17.

sorrow (vv. 4-6). They willingly gave up the use of the ornaments that
they had used in the rebellion and that were, therefore, an offense to God.
33:7-11 The tent referred to here cannot be the tabernacle since the Israelites had
not yet built it. It must have been a smaller tent used as a meeting place for
Moses, the people, and God over which the pillar of cloud stood. This tent
served some of the functions of the tabernacle that later replaced it. Moses
now moved this tent outside the camp to symbolize the removal of God's
presence from the people's midst.546
Moses' personal communion with God was uncommonly intimate (v. 11;
cf. Num. 12:6-8). One writer believed that the cloud was Jesus.547 "Face to
face" is an idiom that communicates intimacy, not a theophany.548
33:12-16 God's withdrawal from Israel created problems for Moses as Israel's
mediator. If God was not going to enter into covenant relationship to Israel
as He had first described (13:21-22), how could Moses lead the nation (cf.
3:11, 13)? This is the focus of Moses' first request (v. 13). He wanted
reassurance that God Himself would lead Israel in the wilderness.549 God
assured him that He would continue to go with His people and thus
provide the rest that His presence among them inspired (v. 14). God gave
another dramatic revelation of Himself similar to the one that He had
formerly given at Sinai (19:9-25).
Moses' second request was that God might confirm him as God's chosen
mediator among the Israelites. He also asked that God might confirm the
nation as His chosen people in view of the change in the relationship (v.
16).
33:17-23 God promised this too (v. 17).
Third, Moses requested a greater perception of God's essential being than
he had experienced thus far. This would also enable him to serve God
more effectively in view of the altered relationship (v. 18). God explained
that no one can view Him directly and live.
"As our bodily eye is dazzled, and its power of vision
destroyed, by looking directly at the brightness of the sun,
so would our whole nature be destroyed by an unveiled
sight of the brilliancy of the glory of God."550
God did grant Moses a greater revelation of Himself, even though it was a
limited revelation. This revelation helped Moses fulfill his duty as a
546See Henry Mowvley, "John 1:14-18 in the light of Exodus 33:7—34:35," The Expository Times 95:5
(February 1984):135-37.
547Ronald B. Allen, "The Pillar of the Cloud," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):393.
548Durham, p. 443.
549Ibid., p. 446.
mediator by giving him a greater appreciation for the person of Yahweh

(cf. 2 Cor. 12:4). This is what all the leaders of God's people need (cf.
Phil. 3:8-10).
". . . though Yahweh does indeed come to Moses in

theophany, what he gives to Moses is quite specifically not
the sight of this beauty, his glory, his Presence—that,
indeed, he pointedly denies. What he gives rather is a
description, and at that, a description not of how he looks
but of how he is."551
3. The renewal of the covenant ch. 34

Moses had obtained God's promise to renew the covenant bond with Israel (33:14). Now
God directed him to restore the covenant revelation by recopying the Ten
Commandments on two new stone tablets. God both provided and wrote on the first
tablets, but Moses provided and God wrote on the second set of tablets.
"As Moses had restored the covenant through his energetic intercession,
he should also provide the materials for the renewal of the covenant
record, and bring them to God, for Him to complete and confirm the
record by writing the covenant words upon the tables."552
Again Moses stayed 40 days and nights in the mountain (v. 28), but this time Joshua did
not accompany him.
"Israel's initial relationship with God at Sinai, characterized by the

patriarchal simplicity of the Covenant Code [Exod. 20:22—23:33], is now
represented by the complex and restrictive laws of the Code of the Priests
[Exod. 35—Lev. 16]."553
34:1-9 The text does not record what Moses saw of God's self-revelation (33:18),
but it does tell us what he heard. Moses stressed the mercy of God in this
exposition of God's name, Yahweh (cf. 29:5-6).
"There is nothing more terrible than the way in which sin

clings to a man and dogs his footsteps. Let a man once
steal, and he is never trusted again, even though he has
made reparation for it. Men look at their fallen brothers
through their sin; but God looks at man through the
idealised [sic] life, with a love that imputes to him every
virtue for Christ's sake."554
551Durham, p. 452.
554Meyer, pp. 448-49.
Moses' response to God's gracious revelation was submission and worship

(v. 8).555
Encouraged by this revelation Moses requested again (cf. 33:15) that God
would dwell in the midst of Israel and lead His people into the Promised
Land (v. 9). He besought the Lord again to re-establish His covenant
acknowledging the sinfulness of the Israelites with whom he humbly
identified.
34:10-26 In response God announced that He would restore the covenant. That is,
He would establish the covenant again. Furthermore He would perform
miracles never before seen, namely, driving out the Canaanites (v. 1).
To remind the Israelites of their duties in the covenant relationship, God

repeated two of the fundamental ordinances (chs. 21—23) that would
determine their attitude toward Him.
1. They were to make no covenants with the Canaanites but drive

them out completely (vv. 11-16). The Israelites were to live by
only one covenant: their covenant with Yahweh at Sinai.
2. They were to worship God as He had specified (vv. 17-26) rather

than as they thought best. Their failure in this had resulted in the
worship of the golden calf.
34:27-28 God re-established the Mosaic Covenant when He had set these principles
forth.
"The tangible token of the renewal is the handing over of

two tables of the testimony like the first, which had been
shattered at the time when the original covenant had been
annulled. The ceremony was to be similar to the first one,
but not so festive, just as the second wedding of one who
marries his divorced wife is not quite the same as the first.
The break has been healed, but it is not possible to undo the
fact that at some time the break had existed."556
34:29-35 The transformation that Moses experienced as a result of his close

fellowship with God showed in his physical appearance, particularly on
his face (cf. Matt. 17:1-3). This change made the other Israelites
uncomfortable around him. The evidence of his close relationship with
God convicted them. Evidently Moses' shining face was evidence to the
Israelites that he had been in the Lord's presence and that what he told
555See J. Carl Laney, "God's Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6-8," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-
March 2001):36-51.
556Cassuto, pp. 437-38. On the practice of fasting, see Kent D. Berghuis, "A Biblical Perspective on
Fasting," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.
them was an oracle from God. The purpose of the veil that Moses wore
over his face while speaking with the Israelites at other times was to hide
the fact that the glory was fading (2 Cor. 3:13).
"The physical nature of this phenomenon must remain a

mystery, but its theological meaning is crystal clear. Moses,
as covenant mediator, was authenticated as such by his
resemblance to the God of glory whom he represented. It is
precisely for this reason that Moses and Elijah shared the
radiance of the transfigured Jesus (Luke 9:31-32)."557
The Hebrew word translated "shone" is unusual and is related to the word
translated "horn," meaning "rayed." In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome
translated the clause in light of the basic meaning of the root word:
"horned." This led some ancient painters to represent Moses in art with
horns coming out of his head.
"Henceforth, the covenant that God makes with Israel will

focus on the role of the mediator. Through him God will
display his glory to his people."558
The covenant as renewed rested on the separation of the people from the nations that God
would drive out. The realization of the blessings that God promised depended on the
Israelites' obedience to this command.
The blessing of God's people rests on the faithful lovingkindness of God and the
intercession of their leaders, Jesus Christ and human leaders. We cannot stress too much
the importance of the kind of intercession that Moses modeled on this occasion. If God
has given you a ministry of leadership, your intercession for those you lead or your lack
of it will directly affect their welfare.
E. THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEDICATION OF THE OBJECTS USED IN ISRAEL'S

WORSHIP CHS. 35—40
The renewal of the covenant made the erection of the tabernacle possible. Here begins
what scholars refer to as the Code of the Priests (Exod. 35—Lev. 16). Having broken the
covenant once, God proceeded to give His people more stringent requirements.
". . . the Code of the Priests sought to ensure Israel's obedience through an
elaborate system of priestly requirements. As the Sinai narrative [Exod.
19—Num. 10] unfolds, then, the simple 'everyman's' altar of the Covenant
Code (Ex 20:24-25) gives way to the singular and more elaborate bronze
altar of the tabernacle (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), one that was to be used solely
by the priests (Lev 1ff.)."559
557Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p. 56. Cf. Durham, p. 468.

559Ibid., pp. 58-59.
"The similarities of Exod 25—31 and 35—40 may all be accounted for on
the basis of their rootage in this all-encompassing theme: both sections,
each in its own way, are preoccupied with Israel's need to experience the
reality of Yahweh's Presence."560
1. Preparations for construction 35:1—36:7
Following the restoration of the covenant, Moses announced God's directions for the
construction of the tabernacle. In building it the Israelites were to work only six days a
week. They were to rest on the Sabbath (35:2-3).
"Kindling a fire receives special attention here because the people thought
that kindling a fire was not a work, but only a preparation for some kind of
work. But the Law makes sure that this too was not done."561
Moses invited the people to bring their contributions for the construction (35:4-19; cf.
25:1-9). These materials would have been the Israelites' own goods. Some were items the
Egyptians had given them when they left Egypt and possessions they had obtained from
traders they had met during their travels since leaving Egypt.
The people began to bring what the builders needed (35:20-29). Moses again recognized
Bezalel and Oholiab as skillful artisans whom God had gifted and appointed to lead the
construction work (35:30—36:2). This provision by God inspired the people to give even
more, so much so that Moses had to tell the people to stop giving (31:3-7). The people
proved their commitment to the covenant and to Yahweh by their generous contributions
to the project that He had ordered.562
2. Execution of the work 36:8—39:43
Moses described the directions for constructing the tabernacle and its furnishings earlier
(chs. 25—31). I will simply give a breakdown of the individual items here with
references and parallel references (cf. also 35:11-19).
The tabernacle 36:8-38
The hangings and coverings 36:8-19 (cf. 26:1-14)

The boards and bars 36:20-34 (cf. 26:15-30)
The veil and screen 36:35-38 (cf. 26:31-37)
"The order of recounting the construction of the parts of the tabernacle is

not the same as that of the instructions in Exodus 25—30. . . . The purpose
for this change is perhaps to begin with, and thus highlight, the part of the
560Durham, p. 474.
562See Dwayne H. Adams, "The Building Program that Works (Exodus 25:4—36:7 [31:1-11])," Exegesis
and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):82-92.
work that involved 'all the skilled workers' before moving on to that work
which involved only Bezalel. Thus the picture given at the beginning of
the narrative is that of the total participation of all the people."563
The furniture, vessels, and courtyard 37:1—38:20

The ark of the covenant 37:1-9 (cf. 25:10-22)
The table of showbread 37:10-16 (cf. 25:23-30)
The lampstand 37:17-24 (cf. 25:31-40)
The altar of incense 37:25-28 (cf. 30:1-10)
The anointing oil and incense 37:29 (cf. 30:22-28)
The brazen altar 38:1-7 (cf. 27:1-8)
The laver 38:8 (cf. 30:17-21)
The courtyard 38:9-20 (cf. 27:9-19)
The raw materials 38:21-31

Moses also recorded an estimate of the amount of metal used (38:21-31). Coined money
did not exist until the eighth century B.C. when the Lydians in Anatolia (modern Turkey)
invented it.564 Consequently the shekel Moses referred to was a measure of weight (not
quite half an ounce).565 The materials included slightly over a ton of gold (v. 24), almost
four tons of silver (vv. 25-28), and about two and a half tons of bronze (vv. 29-31).
The priests' clothing 39:1-31

Moses described the preparation of the priests' clothes at length, as is appropriate in view
of their importance.566
The ephod 39:2-7 (cf. 28:6-12)
The breastplate 39:8-21 (cf. 28:15-29)
The robe 39:22-26 (cf. 28:31-34)
The other accessories 39:27-31 (cf. 28:39-40, 42)
Note the repetition of the fact that the craftsmen followed the Lord's instructions to
Moses precisely (vv. 1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31).
Presentation to Moses 39:32-43

The builders and craftsmen then presented the finished tabernacle items to Moses. The
fact that he listed them again in the text reflects their importance. The statement that they
did their work just as God had commanded Moses brackets the section (vv. 32, 42). As in

564The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Money," by A. F. Walls.
565Unger's Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. "Metrology," by E. McChesney, revised by Merrill F. Unger, pp.
720-25.
566See John E. Johnson, "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity," Bibliotheca Sacra
152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.
the Creation narrative (Gen. 1:28), a blessing concludes the tabernacle construction
narrative (v. 43).
"The readiness and liberality with which the people had presented the gifts
required for this work, and the zeal which they had shown in executing the
whole of the work in rather less than half a year (see at 40:17), were most
cheering signs of the willingness of the Israelites to serve the Lord, for
which they could not fail to receive the blessing of God."567
The sections of Exodus dealing with the tabernacle are a fruitful field for study.568
3. The erection and consecration of the tabernacle ch. 40

The Israelites erected the tabernacle on the first day of the first month, almost exactly one
year after the Israelites left Egypt (vv. 2, 17). This was about nine months after Israel had
arrived at Mt. Sinai (cf. 19:1).
First, the text narrates God's command to erect the tabernacle (vv. 1-15). Moses'
obedience to this command follows (vv. 16-33). Seven times in this chapter we read that
Moses did exactly as the Lord commanded him (vv. 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32; cf. Heb.
3:5).
"The writer's careful attention to the chronology of the events is important,
for it shows that the restriction of the offering of the Passover lamb to the
central worship center (Dt 16:1-8) could thus have already been carried
out during this first celebration of the Passover in the wilderness."569
When the tabernacle stood complete, God descended in the cloud that so filled the
tabernacle that neither Moses nor anyone else could enter it (vv. 34-39). The Jews called
this cloud that indicated the special presence of God the shekinah (lit. residence, i.e., of
God). This term does not appear in the Old Testament but in the Targums. The Targums
are explanations of the Hebrew Scriptures written later in the Aramaic language for the
benefit of Jews who, because of the Babylonian captivity, had not learned Hebrew.
Finally God was dwelling among His people. His redemption of them was now complete.
He had liberated them from bondage in Egypt (chs. 1—15) and adopted them as His
special treasure (chs. 15—40). He had made a covenant with them and now blessed them
with His presence. He would guide them from then on "throughout all their journeys"
(vv. 36, 38). The descent of God to take up residence in the midst of His people is
therefore a fitting climax with which this book closes.
Moses, however, was not able to enter the tabernacle because of the cloud (v. 34). This
indicates that more provisions were necessary before fellowship with God could
continue. Leviticus explains those provisions.

568See Paul F. Kiene, The Tabernacle of God in the Wilderness. This book contains many color pictures of
a model as well as explanations of the furniture, priestly garments, etc.
Conclusion
The major message of this book is that Yahweh is the sovereign God who provides
deliverance for people from the slavery in which they find themselves. Moses revealed
God's methods of providing salvation in Exodus.
His method of dealing with the whole human race was to create a pattern in the nation of
Israel of how glorious it can be to live under the government of Yahweh. His method of
dealing with Israel was by revealing Himself in power and glory. God intended this
revelation to produce the double reaction of obedience (horizontally) and worship
(vertically) in the Israelites. God's method of dealing with individuals was by providing
opportunities to obey and experience blessing or to disobey and experience chastisement.
God's purposes as revealed in Exodus are continually moving forward. People's actions
such as disobedience, apostasy, and rebellion affect God's purposes, but they never
frustrate them. Man's actions in Exodus fail apart from God's grace. This fact
demonstrates that in both his nature and practice man is a congenital sinner.
God's grace in choosing Israel and blessing her with deliverance, adoption, and His
abiding presence stands out clearly in Exodus, especially in view of Israel's ingratitude
and rebelliousness.
"Exodus contains some of the richest, foundational theology of all the

books in the OT. Preeminently, it lays the foundations for a theology of
God's revelation of his person, his redemption, his law, and his worship. It
also initiates the great institution of the priesthood and the role of the
prophet and formalizes the covenant relationship between God and his
people."570
"With Yahweh's Presence promised, then demonstrated, then given to

Israel in theophany at Sinai, the first half of Exodus ends. The second half
of the book is preoccupied with response to that Presence, in life, in
covenant, in worship, and even in disobedience. The largest part of that
second half has to do with the communication to Israel of the reality of
that Presence, through a series of set-apart places, set-apart objects and
set-apart acts, all of them intimately connected, in one way or another,
with Yahweh's Presence."571

571Durham, p. 501.
Appendix
THE HEBREW CALENDAR572

Name of Month Number of
Month Modern Agricultural
Day(s) Festival
Pre- Post- Sacred Civil Month Season
exile exile Year Year
March/ Spring Equinox
Abib Nisan 1 7 1 New Moon
April
Occasional
14 Passover
Sirocco
Latter rains;
Unleavened flood season;
15-21
Bread beginning of
barley season
16 Firstfruits Flax Harvest
Holy
21
Convocation
Dry season
Ziv Iyyar 2 8 April/May begins; apricots
ripen
Wheat harvest
Pentecost
begins; dry
Sivan 3 9 7 (Feast of May/June
winds; early figs;
Weeks)
grapes ripen
Hot, dry season;
Tammuz 4 10 June/July
grape harvest
Air still; heat
July/
Ab 5 11 intense; olive
August
harvest
August/ Dates and
Elul 6 12
September summer figs
Feast of September/ Early (former)
Ethanim Tishri 7 1 1
Trumpets October rains
Day of Heavy dews
10
Atonement
Feast of Plowing; seed
15-21
Tabernacles time
Solemn
22
Assembly
572Davis, p. 142.
THE HEBREW CALENDAR (CONT.)

Name of Month Number of
Month Modern Agricultural
Day(s) Festival
Pre- Post- Sacred Civil Month Season
exile exile Year Year
Rains; winter
October/
Bul Heshvan 8 2 figs; wheat and
November
barley sown
Winter begins;
November/
Chislev 9 3 25 Dedication pastures become
December
green
Coldest month;
December/
Tebeth 10 4 rains; snow on
January
high ground
Growing
January/
Shebat 11 5 warmer; almond
February
trees blossom
Spring (latter)
Feast of February/ rains begin;
Adar 12 6 15
Purim March citrus fruit
harvest
Bibliography
Adams, Dwayne H. "The Building Program that Works (Exodus 25:4--36:7 [31:1-11])."
Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):82-92.
Aharoni, Yohanan. "Kadesh-Barnea and Mount Sinai." In God's Wilderness: Discoveries
in Sinai, pp. 115-70. Edited by B. Rothenberg, Y. Aharoni, and A Hashimshoni.
New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962.
Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.
Albright, William Foxwell. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican
Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.
_____. "Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth
Century B.C." Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954):222-33.
Aldrich, Roy L. "The Mosaic Ten Commandments Compared to Their Restatements in
the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:471 (July-September 1961):251-58.
Alexander, John F. "Sabbath Rest." The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8-9.
Aling, Charles F. "The Biblical City of Ramses." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 25:2 (June 1982):129-37.
Allen, Ronald B. "The 'Bloody Bridegroom' in Exodus 4:24-26." Bibliotheca Sacra
153:611 (July-September 1996):259-69.
_____. "The Pillar of the Cloud." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December
1996):387-95.
Anati, Emmanuel. "Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-
August 1985):42-57.
Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham
to Moses." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):3-25.
_____. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Moses to David."
Bibliotheca Sacra 127:506 (April-June 1970):99-115.
_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press,
1974.
Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for
the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.
Baldwin, Joyce G. "The Role of the Ten Commandments." Vox Evangelica 13 (1983):7-
18.
Barlow, Robert Andres. "The Passover Seder." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall
1988):63-68.
Batto, Bernard F. "Red Sea or Reed Sea?" Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-
August 1984):57-63.
Beale, G. K. "An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of
Pharaoh's Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9." Trinity Journal 5NS:2 (Autumn
1984):129-54.
Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "Fifteen Years in Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 10:4 (July-
August 1984):28-54.
Beitzel, Barry J. The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.
Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629
Bimson, John J. "Redating the Exodus." Biblical Archaeology Review 13:5 (September-
October 1986):40-53, 66-68.
_____. Redating the Exodus and the Conquest. JSOT supplement series. Sheffield:
University of Sheffield Press, 1978.
Blosser, Oliver R. "Did the Pharaoh of the Exodus Drown in the Red Sea?" It's About
Time (July 1987), pp. 8-12.
_____. "The Impact of the Ten Plagues and Mosaic Monotheism on the Religion of
Akenaton: Part I." It's About Time (July 1987), pp. 3-7.
Bodenheimer, F. S. "The Manna of Sinai." Biblical Archaeologist 10:1 (February
1947):2-6.
Booij, Thijs. "Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative." Biblica 65:1 (1984):1-26.
Brichto, Herbert Chanan. "The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a
Fable on Idolatry." Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983):1-44.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.
Budge, E. A. W. The Gods of the Egyptians. New York: Dover Press, 1969.
Bunn, John T. "The Ark of the Covenant." Biblical Illustrator 9:4 (Summer 1983):50-53.
Burden, Jasper J. "A Stylistic Analysis of Exodus 15:1-21: Theory and Practice." OTWSA
29 (1986):34-70.
Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cools; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols.
2nd ed. Reprinted. Cambridge: University Press, 1928.
Bush, George. Notes on Exodus. 2 vols. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: James and Klock, 1976.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel
Abrahams. Reprinted. English ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1974.
Chirichigno, G. C. "The Narrative Structure of Exod 19-24." Biblia 68:4 (1987):457-79.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Divine Hardening in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra
153:612 (October-December 1996):410-34.
_____. "Does God 'Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December
1995):387-99.
_____. "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature."
Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):267-83.
Chismar, Douglas E. and David A Raush. "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.
Clapham, Phillip. "In Search of the Exodus." Catastrophism and Ancient History 8:2
(July 1986):97-133.
Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy." Christianity Today 31:3 (February 20,
1987):17-23.
Cole, R. Alan. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentary series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Congdon, Robert N. "Exodus 21:22-25 and the Abortion Debate." Bibliotheca Sacra
146:582 (April-June 1989):132-47.
Constable, Thomas L. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J.
Dwight Pentecost. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1986.
Cox, Dorian G. Coover. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart in Its Literary and Cultural
Contexts." Bibliotheca Sacra 163:651 (July-September 2006):292-311.
Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.
_____. Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1983.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. "The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth." In God and Christ:
Existence and Province, pp. 1-25. Edited by Robert W. Funk. New York: Harper
and Row, 1968.
_____. "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.
Curtis, Edward M. "The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images in the Old
Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28:3 (September
1985):277-87.
Dalman, Rodger. "Egypt and Early Israel's Cultural Setting: A Quest for Evidential
Possibilities." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:3 (September
2008):449-88.
Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York:
Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.
Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.
Deere, Jack S. "Deuteronomy." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament,
pp. 259-324. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture
Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.
DeHaan, Martin Ralph. The Chemistry of the Blood and Other Stirring Messages. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943.
Deist, F. E. "Who is to blame: the Pharaoh, Yahweh or circumstance? On human
responsibility, and divine ordinance in Exodus 1—14." OTWSA 29(1986):91-110.
Dennett, Edward. Typical Teachings of Genesis. London: G. Morrish, n.d.
Dennison, James T., Jr. "The Exodus: Historical Narrative, Prophetic Hope, Gospel
Fulfillment." Covenant Seminary Review 8:2 (Fall 1982):1-12.
Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by James Hastings, 1909 ed. S.v. "Tabernacle," by A. R. S.
Kennedy.
Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle
Publishing Co., 1992.
Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1984.
Dunnam, Maxie D. Exodus. The Communicator's Commentary series. Waco: Word
Books, 1987.
Dunnett, Dolores E. "Evangelicals and Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 33:2 (June 1990):215-25.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.
Dyer, Charles H. "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559
(July-September 1983):225-43.
Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word
Publishing, 2001. Reissued as Nelson's Old Testament Survey. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 2001.
Ellison, H. L. Exodus. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.
Encyclopaedia Judica. S.v. "Cuneiform Law," by J. Finkelstein, 16:1505i.
Exum, J. Cheryl. "'You Shall Let Every Daughter Live': A Study of Exodus 1:8—2:10."
Semeia 28 (1983):63-82.
Fass, David E. "The Molten Calf: Judgment, Motive, and Meaning." Judaism 39:2
(Spring 1990):171-83.
Fawver, Jay D., and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca
Sacra 147:587 (July-September):270-85.
Fensham, F. C. "Extra-Biblical Material and the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament with
Special Reference to the Legal Material of the Covenant Code." OTWSA 20 & 21
(1977 & 78):53-65.
Finegan, Jack. Let My People Go. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1963.
Finkelstein, Israel. "Raider of the Lost Mountain—An Israeli Archaeologist Looks at the
Most Recent Attempt to Locate Mt. Sinai." Biblical Archaeology Review 15:4
(July-August 1988):46-50.
Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press,
1948; reprint ed., New York: Harper and Row; Harper Torchbooks, 1961.
Franz, Gordon. "Mt. Sinai Is Not Jebel El-Lawz in Saudi Arabia." A paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, 15 November 2001,
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. 5th ed. revised. Wheaton: Scripture
Press, 1956.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp.
113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press,
1994.
_____. "The Sabbath Controversy." Biblical Research Monthly 49:4 (July-August
1984):14-16.
Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's
Digest Association, 1985.
Gevirtz, Stanley. "Heret, in the Manufacture of the Golden Calf." Biblica 65 (1984):377-
81.
Gianotti, Charles R. "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH." Bibliotheca Sacra
142:565 (January-March 1985):38-51.
Gispen, William H. Exodus. Translated by Ed van der Maas. Bible Student's
Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.
Gnuse, Robert. "Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel's Vision of Social Reform."
Biblical Theology Bulletin 15:2 (April 1985):43-48.
Goldberg, Michael. "Expository Articles: Exodus 1:13-14." Interpretation 37:4 (October
1983):389-91.
Gottwald, Norman. A Light to the Nations. New York: Harper & Bros., 1959.
Gunn, David M. "The 'Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart': Plot, Character and Theology in
Exodus 1-14." In Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, pp. 72-96.
Edited by David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 19. Sheffield: University of
Sheffield, 1982.
Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964.
Habel, N. "The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives." Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965):316-23.
Hagin, Kenneth E. Redeemed from Poverty, Sickness, and Death. Tulsa: Faith Library
Publications, 1983.
Hannah, John D. "Exodus." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp.
103-62. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press
Publications, Victor Books, 1985.
Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and
History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1982.
Hawkins, Ralph K. "The Date of the Exodus-Conquest Is Still an Open Question: A
Response to Rodger Young and Bryant Wood." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 51:2 (June 2008):245-66.
Hays, J. Daniel "An Evangelical Approach to Old Testament Narrative Criticism."
Hengstenberg, Ernst W. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Translated by R. D. C. Robbins.
New York: M. H. Newman, 1843.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York:
Carlton Press, Hearthstone Book, 1987.
Hilber, John W. "Theology of Worship in Exodus 24." Journal of the Evangelical
Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical
Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.
Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra
126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.
Hoffmeier, James K. "What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant
Wood." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:2 (June 2007):225-47.
Holmgren, Fredrick. "Before the Temple, the Thornbush: An Exposition of Exodus
2:11—3:12." Reformed Journal 33:3 (March 1983):9-11.
Hopkins, Ezekiel. "Understanding the Ten Commandments." In Classical Evangelical
Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 41-58. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.
Hoppe, Leslie J. "Elders and Deuteronomy." Eglise et Theologie 14 (1983):259-72.
Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington:

Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.
Hort, Greta. "The Plagues of Egypt." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69
(1957):84-103; 70 (1958):48-59.
Houtman, C. "A Note on the LXX Version of Exodus 4,6." Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97:2 (1983):253-54.
_____. "On the Meaning of Uba'esim Uba'abanim in Exodus VII 19." Vetus Testamentum
36:3 (1986):347-52.
Hughes, R. Kent. Living on the Cutting Edge. Westchester, Il.: Good News Publishers,
Crossway Books, 1987.
Hyatt, J. Philip. Exodus. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall,
Morgan and Scott, 1971; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Isser, Stanley. "Two Traditions: The Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited." Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):30-45.
Jacob, Benno. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken: KTAV, 1992.
Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity."
Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.
Johnson, Philip C. "Exodus." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 51-86. Edited by
Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.
Johnston, Gordon H. "I Will Multiply Your Seed." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall
1986):19-32.
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston.
Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "Exodus." In Genesis—Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible
Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn.
_____. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.
Kalland, Lloyd. "Fetal Life." Eternity, February 1971, pp. 18-21, 24.
Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin.
Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.
Kempinski, Aharon. "Jacob in History." Biblical Archaeology Review 14:1 (January-
February 1988):42-47.
Kennedy, James M. "The Social Background of Early Israel's Rejection of Cultic Images:
A Proposal." Biblical Theology Bulletin 17:4 (October 1987);138-44.
Kiene, Paul F. The Tabernacle of God in the Wilderness. Translated by John S. Crandall.
King, Geoffrey R. "Where Is the Ark of the Covenant?" Prophetic Witness 8:2 (February
1984):9-10.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1966.
_____. The Bible In Its World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.
_____. "Labour Conditions in the Egypt of the Exodus." Buried History 20:3 (September
1984):43-49.
_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 2 From Egypt to the Jordan." Theological
Students' Fellowship Bulletin 60 (1971):3-11.
Kline, Meredith G. "Comments on an Old-New Error." Westminster Theological Journal
41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89.
_____. "Deuteronomy." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 155-204. Edited by
Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.
_____. "The Feast of Cover-over." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4
(December 1994):497-510.
_____. "Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus." Simon Greenleaf Law Review 5 (1985-
86):75-89.
_____. The Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1963.
Kubo, Sakae. "Why then the law?" Ministry (March 1980), pp. 12-14.
Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill,
1966.
Laney, J. Carl. "God's Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629
Lange, John Peter, ed. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed.,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by
John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman,
and Charles M. Mead.
Lev, Mordecai J., ed. Sepher Mitzvoth. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.
Lightner, Robert P. "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569
(January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; 571 (July-
September 1986):228-45.
Livingston, G. Herbert. "A Case Study of the Call of Moses." Asbury Theological
Journal 42:2 (Fall 1987):89-113.
_____.The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1974.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E. "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf." Biblica 48
(1967):481-90.
_____. "The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf—a Rejoinder." Biblica 56
(1975):330-43.
Lubarsky, Sandra B. "Judaism and the Justification of Abortion for Non-Medical
Reasons." Journal of Reform Judaism 31:4 (Fall 1984):1-13.
M[ackintosh], C. H. Notes on the Book of Exodus. American ed. New York: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1879.
MacLurg, Jeffrey E. "An Ode to Joy: The Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:1-21)." Exegesis
Magonet, Jonathan. "The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6.2-8." Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 27 (1983):56-67.
Marcus, David. "Juvenile Delinquency in the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Journal
of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):31-52.
Master, Jonathan. "Exodus 32 as an Argument for Traditional Theism." Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 45:4 (December 2002):585-98.
Mazar, Amihai. "Bronze Bull Found in Israelite 'High Place' from the Time of the
Judges." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:5 (September-October 1983):34-40.
Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East.
Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955.
Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1994.
_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
_____. "The Mosaic Covenant: A Proposal for Its Theological Significance." Exegesis
_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp.
7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.
Meyer, Frederick Brotherton. Devotional Commentary on Exodus. London: Purnell, n.d.;
reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981.
Milgrom, Jacob. "'Thou Shalt Not Boil a Kid in It's Mother's Milk.'" Bible Review 1:3
(Fall 1985):48-55.
Mills, Watson E. "Childbearing in Ancient Times." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall

1986):54-56.
Minter, Steve. "Ten Timeless Words (Exodus 20:1-17)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1
(Fall 1986):67-80.
Mitchell, Bill. "Leviticus 24.6: The Bread of the Presence—Rows or Piles?" Bible
Translator 33:4 (October 1982):447-48.
Mitchell, T. C. "The Meaning of the Noun HTN in the Old Testament." Vetus
Testamentum 19 (1969):93-112.
Montet, Pierre. Eternal Egypt. Translated by Doreen Weightman. New York: New
American Library, 1964.
Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.
Morgan, J. P. "The Morality of Suicide: Issues and Options." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590
(April-June 1991):214-30.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. "The Name of the God of Moses." Hebrew Union College Annual
32 (1961):121-33.
Mowvley, Henry. "John 1:14-18 in the Light of Exodus 33:7—34:35." Expository Times
95:5 (February 1984):135-37.
Munro, John "Prayer to a Sovereign God." Interest 56:2 (February 1990):20-21.
Myers, John V. "What Was Brimstone?" Kronos 9:1 (Fall 1983):57-60.
Naville, Edouard. The Store-City of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus. London: Egypt
Exploration Fund, 1885.
The NET (New English Translation) Bible. First beta printing. Spokane, Wash.: Biblical
Studies Press, 2001.
The New Bible Dictionary. 1962 ed. S.v. "Money," by A. F. Walls.
_____. S.v. "Plagues of Egypt," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.
_____. S.v. "Red Sea," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.
Nichol, Francis David, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 7 vols.
Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1953-57.
Nicholson, E. W. "The Decalogue As the Direct Address of God." Vetus Testamentum 27
(October 1977):422-33.
Noordtzij, A. Numbers. Translated by Ed van der Maas. Bible Student's Commentary
series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.
Nowell, Irene. "Sabbath: Sign of the Covenant." The Bible Today 24:6 (November
1986):376-80.
Oosthuizen, M. J. "Some thoughts on the interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26." OTWSA

29(1986):1-30.
Patterson, Richard D. "The Imagery of Clouds in the Scriptures." Bibliotheca Sacra
165:657 (January-March 2008):13-27.
_____. "Victory at Sea: Prose and Poetry in Exodus 14—15." Bibliotheca Sacra 161:641
_____. "Wonders in the Heavens and on the Earth: Apolcalyptic Imagery in the Old
Testament." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September
2000):385-403.
Paul, Shalom. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical
Law. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. A Faith That Endures: The Book of Hebrews Applied to the Real
Issues of Life. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992.
_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September
1971):227-33.
_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.
Perevolotsky, Aviram, and Israel Finkelstein. "The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in
Ecological Perspective." Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August
1985):26-41.
Petrie, Flinders. Egypt and Israel. New York: E. S. Gorham, 1911.
Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.
Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. New York: Schocken, 1970.
_____. "A Fresh Look at the Sinai Pericope." Vetus Testamentum 34 (January 1984): 39-
52; 34 (July 1984):282-94.
_____. The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21:2-11." Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 30 (October 1984):51-66.
_____. "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel." Vetus Testamentum 23
(1973):349-61.
Pollock, Algernon J. The Tabernacle's Typical Teaching. London: Pickering & Inglis,
n.d.
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd
ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Proffitt, T. D., III. "Moses and Anthropology: A New View of the Exodus." Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 27:1 (March 1984):19-25.
Radday, Yehuda T. "The Spoils of Egypt." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
12 (1983):127-47.
Ramey, William D. "The Great Escape (Exodus 14)." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall
1986):33-42.
Ramm, Bernard L. His Way Out. Glendale: Gospel Light Publications; Regal Books,
1974.
Reviv, Hanoch. "The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel:
Significance and Dating." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94:4
(1982):566-75.
Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Tabernacle. Bible Truth Library series. New York:
Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, n.d.
Robinson, Bernard P. "Symbolism in Exod. 15:22-27 (Marah and Elim)." Revue Biblique
94:3 (July 1987):376-88.
_____. "Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6." Vetus
Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):447-61.
Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. "Sanctuary Theology in the Book of Exodus." Andrews
University Seminary Studies 24:2 (Summer 1986):127-45.
Rooker, Mark F. Leviticus. The New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman
& Holman Publishers, 2000.
Ross, Allen P. "When God Gives His People Bitter Water." Exegesis and Exposition 1:1
(Fall 1986):55-66.
Rowley, Harold H. "Moses and the Decalogue." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of
the University of Manchester 34:1 (September 1951);81-118.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-
September 1967):239-47.
_____. The Holy Spirit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1—2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS (Spring
1984):73-82.
_____. "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch." Westminster Theological
Journal 53 (Fall 1991):241-61.
_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Sarles, Ken L. "An Appraisal of the Signs and Wonders Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra
145:577 (January-March 1988):57-82.
_____ "A Theological Evaluation of the Prosperity Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572
(October-December 1986):329-52.
Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
_____. "Exploring Exodus—The Oppression." Biblical Archaeologist 49:2 (June
1986):68-79.
Sasson, J. M. "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East." Journal of Biblical Literature 85

(1966):473-76.
Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1965.
Shafer, B. E., ed. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. Ithica:
Cornell University Press, 1991.
Sheriffs, Deryck. "Moving on with God: Key motifs in Exodus 13—20." Themelios 15:2
(January-February 1990):49-60.
Siker-Gieseler, Jeffrey. "The Theology of the Sabbath in the Old Testament: A Canonical
Approach." Studia Biblica et Theologica 11:1 (April 1981):5-20.
Soltau, Henry W. The Tabernacle, the Priesthood and the Offerings. London: Morgan
and Scott, n.d.
Speiser, E. A. "An Angelic 'Curse': Exodus 14:20." Journal of the American Oriental
Society 80 (1960):198-200.
Sprinkle, Joe M. "Law and Narrative in Exodus 19—24." Journal of the Evangelical
Spurgeon, Graham. "Is Abortion Murder?" In The Religious Case for Abortion, pp. 15-
27. Edited by Hamilton Gregory. Asheville: Madison and Polk, 1983.
Sring, Margit L. "The Horn-Motifs of the Bible and the Ancient Near East." Andrews
University Seminary Studies 22:3 (Autumn 1984):327-40.
Steuer, Axel D. "The Freedom of God and Human Freedom." Scottish Journal of
Theology 36:2:163-80.
Stiebing, William H., Jr. "Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement in Canaan Be
Redated?" Biblical Archaeology Review 11:4 (July-August 1985):58-69.
Strange, James F. "The Jewish Calendar." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):28-32.
Strauss, Lehman. The Eleven Commandments. 2nd ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers,
1975.
Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.
Tan, Paul Lee. Principles of Literal Interpretation of the Bible. By the Author, 1967.
Tolhurst, A. H. "Whatever Happened to the Ark?" Ministry, June 1984, pp. 13-15.
Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1954.
_____. Biblical Demonology. 7th ed. Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1967.
_____. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1974.
_____. "The Significance of the Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March

1966):53-59.
Unger's Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. S.v. "Cherub," by Merrill F. Unger.
_____. S.v. "Metrology," by E. McChesney, revised by Merrill F. Unger.
van der Meulen, Henry E. Faber. "One or two veils in front of the holy of holies?"
Theologia Evangelica 18:1 (March 1985):22-27.
Van Seters, John. The Hyksos. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.
Voss, Robert J. "Who Am I That I Should Go? Exodus 3:11 (Ex. 2:25--4:18)." Wisconsin
Lutheran Quarterly 80:4 (Fall 1983):243-47.
Wagner, Maurice E. "How to Honor Your Parents When They've Hurt You." Psychology
for Living 28:6 (June 1986):12-14.
Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall
1986):363-72.
_____. An Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2007.
_____. "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus."
_____. "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13.
Walvoord, John F. The Holy Spirit. Wheaton, Ill.: Van Kampen Press, 1954; Findlay,
Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.
_____. "The New Covenant." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 186-200.
Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1994.
Ward, William A. The Spirit of Ancient Egypt. Beirut: Khayats, 1965.
Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. 1692. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1976.
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.
Wenham, John W. The Goodness of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1974.
Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., n.d.
Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Williams, Gary R. "The Purpose of Penology in the Mosaic Law and Today." Bibliotheca
Sacra 133:529 (January-March 1976):42-55.
Wilson, Robert Dick. "Yahweh (Jehovah) and Exodus 6:3." In Classical Evangelical
Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 29-40. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.
Wilson, Robert R. "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:1
(1979):18-36.
Winter, Ralph D. "The Growth of Israel in Egypt (The Phenomenon of Exponential
Growth)." Paper published by the Institute of International Studies, Pasadena, Ca.,
14 April 1993.
Wolf, Herbert M. An Introduction to the Old Testament Pentateuch. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1991.
Wolinski, Arelene. "Egyptian Masks: The Priest and His Role." Archaeology 40:1
(January-February 1987):22-29.
Wood, Bryant G. "The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48:3 (September 2005):475-89.
_____. "The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:2 (June 2007):249-58.
Wood, Leon J. The Prophets of Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.
_____. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.
Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.
Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East." Biblical
Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.
Wyatt, N. "The Significance of the Burning Bush." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July
1986):361-65.
Wyrick, Stephen Von. "Israel's Golden Calves." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):3-
12.
Young, Edward J. My Servants the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Young, Rodger C., and Bryant G. Wood. "A Critical Analysis of the Evidence from
Ralph Hawkins for a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest." Journal of the Evangelical
Youngblood, Ronald F. Exodus. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1983.
_____. "A New Look at an Old Problem: The Date of the Exodus." Christianity Today
26:20 (December 17, 1982):58, 60.
Zuck, Roy B. "The Practice of Witchcraft in the Scriptures." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:512
(October-December 1971):352-60.

Exodus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exodus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exodus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the scope of the book of Exodus?

What is the scope of the book of Exodus?

What is the purpose of the book of Exodus?

What is the purpose of the book of Exodus?

Notes on

DATE AND WRITER

1Ronald Youngblood, Exodus, pp. 9-10.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas L. Constable

"The purpose of the Book of Exodus is to celebrate God's gracious

"No other biblical book surfaces elsewhere in the OT as frequently as the

"The deliverance of Israel out of Egypt by Yahweh in the Old Testament

I. The liberation of Israel 1:1—15:21

3. The response of the Israelites 20:18-21

I. Israel's liberation chs. 1—18

Ted saw the following chiastic structure in this section.

A Midian: Moses' commission 2:15—4:28

II. Israel's adoption chs. 19—40

Ted also saw a chiasm in this part of the book.

A Covenant delivered 19:1—24:11

Ted saw the key verse of the book as 34:9.

A. GOD'S PREPARATION OF ISRAEL AND MOSES CHS. 1—4

2. The Israelites' bondage in Egypt 1:8-22

"In the Late Bronze Age [ca. 1500-1200 B.C.], Egypt

Mediterranean Sea 100 miles

* Tell el Amarna Red Sea

The title "Pharaoh" means "great house." It originally designated the

"Forgetfulness of Joseph brought the favour shown to the

IDENTIFICATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT PHARAOHS

SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (dynasties 15-16; ca. 1674-1567 B.C.). Capital:

"Infanticide was commonly practiced by the nations of

This second plan "miscarried" too.

The Pharaoh Moses referred to in verse 22 was probably Thutmose I.30

3. Moses' birth and education 2:1-10

30See Davis, p. 51.

It was not uncommon for Pharaohs and other Egyptians to bathe

4. Moses' flight from Egypt to Midian 2:11-15

"Midianites were employed in the copper mines of the Sinai Peninsula by

5. Moses' life in Midian 2:16-25

48Keil and Delitzsch, 1:435.

6. Moses' call 3:1—4:18

A burning thorn-bush was and is not uncommon in the Sinai desert.51

"God begins his discourse with Moses by warning him not

"The anthropomorphisms (i.e., the descriptions of God's

"Is there no discrepancy between these two announcements

53Keiland Delitzsch, 1:437-40.

manhood's prime, to work out with painful elaboration, and

"This formula was at first coined by the nomadic shepherds

"Some time before he had offered himself of his own

humility in the school of Midian, and was filled in

"In these verses [11-12], the presentation of the

"As long as a man holds that he is easily able to do some

". . . the experience of Moses in 3:1-12 is an exact

"According to the conception prevailing in the ancient East,

with its existence: whatever is without an appellation does

"The question contains both a request for information and

"What Moses asks, then, has to do with whether God can

"The repetition of the same word [I am] suggests the idea

Yet it means more than this.

"I am that I am" means "God will reveal Himself in His

63Cassuto, pp. 36-37.