# commentaries

text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, You have spoken well. I will see your face again no more- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The LXX makes this sound as if Pharaoh was as it were being judged out of his own mouth: "And Moses says, Thou hast said, I will not appear in thy presence again". Pharaoh had said that he wouldn't see Moses again, and indeed he wouldn't- for he would soon be slain. That is the implication of Moses' words. And yet according to <em><a href='B:20 12:31'>Exo 12:31</a></em>, there was one last brief meeting between them. So the idea may be that Moses would not again appear before God's face again in intercession for Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Pharaoh and Egypt were now beyond Moses' intercession and prayer. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Yet one plague more will I bring on Pharaoh, and on Egypt; afterwards he will let you go. When he lets you go, he will surely thrust you out altogether- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God's purpose will be achieved. His desire was that Pharaoh should let Israel go. He refused, but in the end, he and his people begged them to leave and hasted them to get out, loading them with their wealth, desperate that they should leave immediately. The lesson is that we will as it were be forced to be obedient to God's will; but we will not be saved unless we willingly do this. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak now in the ears of the people, and let them ask every man of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken from the Gentile world and dedicated to the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:19'>Jos 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a></em>). The generosity of others in Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to spirituality. This request for high value material goods was playing on the basic human tendency to think that we can buy salvation. And in times of desperation, that sense is all the stronger. And God played on that aspect of human nature. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we see God's power through His Spirit to give attitudes to people, to work directly upon the human heart.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Note that God’s comment on Moses was: “the man Moses was very great” (<em><a href='B:20 11:3'>Exo 11:3</a></em>). Yet it is also written that “the man Moses was very meek” (<em><a href='B:40 12:3'>Num 12:3</a></em>). Putting the two passages together we have the clear lesson that he who humbles himself is made great; and in this, Moses was not only a type of Christ but also a pattern for all who would go through the pattern which the Lord Jesus set before us: of humbling ourselves now that we might be made great in due time. Moses our example is really a challenge in this.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, This is what Yahweh says: ‘About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is stressed that Israel were taken out from the "midst of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:51'>1Ki 8:51</a></em>). The plagues and wonders were done in "the midst of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:20 3:20'>Exo 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:3'>Deu 11:3</a></em>). The midst of Egypt appears to be defined in <em><a href='B:230 135:9'>Psa 135:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 19:3'>Isa 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 29:3'>Eze 29:3</a></em> as being Pharaoh and his servants. The narrative therefore stresses so much his response to the plagues. God's especial focus had been upon his conversion, and yet he refused. Israel were taken out right from under his nose, from the very heart of Egypt. <em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em> reveals what is not recorded in the historical record; that because the Israelites were so devoted to Egyptian idolatry still, His thought had been to destroy them "in the midst of the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). But God's pole of grace overcame the pole of necessary judgment. He tolerated them and saved them, with enthusiasm, by the grace which comes from love- love taken to its ultimate, saving term. The whole narrative speaks as if the Hebrews were all at one place at one time and left "the midst of Egypt" together. Although unrecorded in the historical narrative, this would have meant that they gathered together "in the midst of Egypt" with Moses, who was not in Goshen but in the locality and presence of Pharaoh.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the female servant who is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of livestock-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Women grinding at the mill therefore refer to the lowest class in society (<em><a href='B:290 47:2'>Isa 47:2</a></em>; Jdg. 14:21; <em><a href='B:310 5:13'>Lam 5:13</a></em>). Yet from amongst them will some be snatched away to meet their Lord at His return, just as those with the leisure to be lounging in bed will be called away (<em><a href='B:490 17:34-35'>Luk 17:34-35</a></em>). Animals were worshipped in Egypt as representatives of the various gods, especially the firstborn of animals; and we recall therefore that the plagues were judgments against the gods of Egypt.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there has not been, nor shall be any more- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This "great cry" is described with the same phrase used in <em><a href='B:10 27:34'>Gen 27:34</a></em>, when Esau cries with a great cry- realizing that he had been rejected from God's purpose and that could not now be put right. Whilst the great cry was indeed because of their loss, the connection with Esau is to make the point that despite all God's efforts, they had turned down His invitation to have a part in His purpose- and realized that all too late.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But against any of the children of Israel a dog won’t even bark or move its tongue, against man or animal; that you may know that Yahweh makes a distinction between the Egyptians and Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way conditions are not stated within the actual prophecy is similar to how blanket statements are made in Scripture, and yet there are exceptions to them. “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue” (<em><a href='B:20 11:7'>Exo 11:7</a></em>) was in fact conditional on Israel remaining indoors. But that condition isn’t then stated. Even the old covenant, which was in a sense “eternal”, was made with Israel “upon all these conditions” (<em><a href='B:20 24:8'>Exo 24:8</a></em> RVmg.). It was eternal, potentially, because it had conditions. But the conditionality of it isn’t always brought to the fore when, e.g., we read of the Sabbath as being an eternal ordinance.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'setting apart' of Israel from Egypt is a major theme (<em><a href='B:20 8:22'>Exo 8:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:4'>Exo 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:7'>Exo 11:7</a></em> "put a difference"). It was part of a 'sanctifying' of Israel for priestly service to Yahweh as a nation, as well as a lesson for Egypt that the only way to salvation was through separation from their own people and culture, and joining the people of God. We marvel at the multi functional way in which God works. The same word is used to describe how God "has set apart him that is Godly for Himself" (<em><a href='B:230 4:3'>Psa 4:3</a></em>); even though Israel were far from being Godly. And it is used of God's special grace, 'set apart', a grace known by no other people (<em><a href='B:230 17:7'>Psa 17:7</a></em>). The word is used in this sense in <em><a href='B:20 33:16'>Exo 33:16</a></em>, where Moses reasons that it is God's grace and the visible presence of that grace which is what sets apart Israel from all other peoples. And that is true to this day. God's grace is what is the lead and distinguishing characteristic of His way from all other religions. It is the experience of that grace which makes us distinct from all others who have not claimed it for themselves. And it all began with God 'setting apart' a sinful, idolatrous Israel from the Egyptians around them, all by grace, seeing they were largely no better than Egypt.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All these your servants shall come down to me, and bow down themselves to me, saying, Get out, with all the people who follow you; and after that I will go out’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>GNB tries to make better sense here: "Moses concluded by saying, "All your officials will come to me and bow down before me, and they will beg me to take all my people and go away. After that, I will leave." Then in great anger Moses left the king". <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To be caught up in the downward spiral (as we all are at times) doesn't mean that there's no way out. The hearts of Pharaoh's servants were hardened (<em><a href='B:20 10:1'>Exo 10:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:20 9:34'>Exo 9:34</a></em>), and yet they did in fact soften when they beg Pharaoh to let Israel go (<em><a href='B:20 10:7'>Exo 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>). Yet each refusal of Pharaoh to soften his heart made it harder for him to soften it the next time the opportunity was presented. Conditional language is always used about Pharaoh-if he were to refuse to release Israel, more plagues would happen (<em><a href='B:20 8:2'>Exo 8:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:2'>Exo 9:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:4'>Exo 10:4</a></em> cp. 8:21; 4:23 RSV). In fact God wanted Pharaoh to come to realize that there is none like Yahweh in all the earth- and that was actually why He did not immediately kill Pharaoh, but rather appealed to him through the plagues. That's how I read the enigmatic <em><a href='B:20 9:15'>Exo 9:15</a></em>: "For now I should have put forth my hand, and smitten thee... and thou hadst been cut off from the earth". Fretheim paraphrases this: "If I had not had the intention of your knowing that there is none like me in all the earth... then I should have put forth my hand and cut you off from the earth. This is what you have deserved". The hardening of Pharaoh's heart didn't mean that he was thereby bound to chose wrongly each time. Indeed, the plagues themselves were designed to warn Pharaoh and thereby appeal to him to change, in order to avoid worse plagues. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He went out from Pharaoh in hot anger- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' faith slipped for a moment; because his spirit was provoked by Israel, so that he spoke unadvisedly with his lips and was therefore barred from entering the land (although maybe such an apparently temporary slip was the reflection of deeper problems?). Yet it does seem uncharacteristic, a tragic slip down the graph of ever rising spirituality. There must have almost been tears in Heaven. Being easily provoked was one of Moses' characteristics; consider how he turned himself and stormed out from Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 10:6'>Exo 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>); how his anger waxed hot when he returned from the mount, how he went out from Pharaoh in great anger, how he first of all feared the wrath of Pharaoh and then stopped fearing it; how Moses was "very wroth" at Israel's suggestion that he was appropriating the sacrifices for himself; how he was "angry" with Eleazer (<em><a href='B:20 32:19'>Exo 32:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:8'>Exo 11:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:15'>Num 16:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 10:16-17'>Lev 10:16-17</a></em>). This temperament explains his swings of faith. Was the Lord Jesus likewise afflicted? <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Pharaoh won’t listen to you, that My wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God is never ultimately defeated by human intransigence and lack of response to Him. Pharaoh's refusal to listen would result in God's wonders being multiplied, and thereby more glory being given to Him. The multiplication of wonders could be a form of saying (as an intensive plural) that there would be a multiplied wonder, a very great wonder, performed- in the events of the Red Sea. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and Yahweh hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he didn’t let the children of Israel go out of his land- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words used of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart occur in a positive context- for God also hardens or strengthens the hearts of the righteous (<em><a href='B:230 27:14'>Psa 27:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:4'>Isa 35:4</a></em>). Indeed, <em><a href='B:290 35:4'>Isa 35:4</a></em> speaks of how the righteous shouldn’t have a weak or (Heb.) ‘fluid’ heart, but rather a hardened one. Clearly enough, God solidifies human attitudes, one way or the other, through the work of His Spirit upon our spirit. This is a sobering thought- for He is prepared to confirm a person in their weak thinking. But on the other hand, even the weakest basic intention towards righteousness is solidified by Him too. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God hardened his heart, meaning He had removed sensitivity from his conscience. His heart was turned by God, because that was the direction he himself wanted (<em><a href='B:230 105:25'>Psa 105:25</a></em>). Pharaoh's response gets increasingly better, confessing sinfulness, asking for prayer, etc. And yet we have to read this as his conscience being increasingly touched, and yet he refused to act upon it. The movement of conscience within him was overcome by the movement of hardness; and as hardness was his dominant desire, it was that which Yahweh confirmed. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that He had spoken to them in Egypt, before they left. For what we read now is partly retelling what had been told them before.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This month shall be to you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year to you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Seeing they had been 430 years in Egypt, they would previously have followed the Egyptian beginning of the year- which commenced with the overflowing of the Nile at the summer solstice. But Israel were to begin their year by celebrating the overflowing of the Red Sea which destroyed the Egyptians.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth day of this month, they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Every man a lamb" is purposefully ambiguous. The idea is that the heads of households should do this, but it is phrased in such a way as to imply that every Israelite was to do this. They were to each see in the lamb the source of their personal redemption. The Passover, like the breaking of bread service which it anticipated, has both a collective and a personal aspect. We note God's method of salvation by households, with those without families apparently taken in to existing household units (<em><a href='B:230 68:6'>Psa 68:6</a></em>). And we wonder whether there is not an element of that within His present economy of working, through the lamb which represents the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and if the household is too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbour next to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to what everyone can eat you shall make your count for the lamb- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The implication was that the slain lamb was to be totally consumed, and therefore there needed to be enough people present to ensure this would happen. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Mosaic command to give, every man according to the blessing with which God had blessed him (<em><a href='B:50 16:17'>Deu 16:17</a></em>), is purposely similar in phrasing to the command to eat of the Passover lamb, every man according to his need; and to partake of the manna (cp. the Lord Jesus), every man according to his need (<em><a href='B:20 12:4'>Exo 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:6'>Exo 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:16'>Exo 16:16</a></em>). According to the desperation of our need, so we partake of Christ; and in response, according to our blessing, we give, in response to the grace of His giving. &nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your lamb shall be without blemish- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This looked ahead to the unblemished character of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). The offering of sacrifices "without blemish" uses a word which is used about Abraham and Noah being "without blemish" (AV "perfect") before God (<em><a href='B:10 6:9'>Gen 6:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a></em>). Although the word is used about the sacrifices, it is really more appropriate to persons- "you shall be perfect with Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:50 18:13'>Deu 18:13</a></em>), "serve Him in sincerity (s.w. "without blemish")" (<em><a href='B:60 24:14'>Jos 24:14</a></em>). The idea, therefore, was that the offerer was invited to see the animal as representative of himself. Our lives too are to be as "living sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>). And yet in practical terms, no animal is without blemish. They were to give the best they could, and God would count it as without blemish; as He does with us. David frequently uses the term in the Psalms about himself and the "upright", even though he was far from unblemished in moral terms. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A male a year old- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Male not only because it looked forward to the Lord Jesus, but also because it represented the firstborn males who were to be saved from death by the death of the lamb. We note therefore that the lamb died as a representative of those redeemed, rather that a substitute for them.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take it out from the sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Take it out" implies that it was not to be kept aside specially, but was to be one of the flock. This eloquently points forward to the Lord Jesus as taken out of the flock of humanity. He was of our nature, and not God Himself. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or from the goats- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We get the impression that God was very strict about the offerings. He was. But He made concession to the man who couldn't bring what he ought to: "If he be poor, and cannot get much... two young pigeons, such as he is able to get" (<em><a href='B:30 14:22'>Lev 14:22</a></em>). If they were blemished in some way, and even though they were not the animal God desired, God would accept such as the man was able to get. Likewise the offerings had to involve the shedding of blood; but God was prepared to accept a food offering if a man really couldn't get an animal. The eagerness of God to accept what a man can do rather than the insistence on legal principles really comes over. He recognized the Israelites would be living on different levels. Such an eagerness involved accepting a lower standard of adherence to God's ideal principles. In harmony with this, the Passover ‘lamb’ (:3) could be either a sheep, or if necessary, a goat (<em><a href='B:20 12:5'>Exo 12:5</a></em>), even though the use of a goat would somewhat spoil the foreshadowing of the Lord Jesus Christ.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall keep it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "it shall be kept by you". The idea may be that the lamb was to be kept in their homes from the 10th to the 14th day. The family would become fond of the lamb, it was even more one of them that was to be sacrificed for the salvation of the family. And this again speaks of the Lord's absolute sharing of human nature, as our representative, truly 'one of us'.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Why was the lamb or kid kept for four days (<em><a href='B:20 12:2'>Exo 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>)? If the effects of circumcision take three days to wear off (<em><a href='B:10 34:25'>Gen 34:25</a></em>), it could be that the uncircumcised males were intended to circumcise themselves, chose the lamb, and then keep the Passover four days later. Some Jewish commentators claim that God fell in love with Israel whilst she was still in her blood (<em><a href='B:330 16:6'>Eze 16:6</a></em>) in that some Jews circumcised themselves at the time of the first Passover- hence one Rabbi speaks of the blood of circumcision and the blood of the first Passover running together. See on <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people of Israel as a body were going through the death and resurrection experience of the Lord Jesus, through the process of the Passover and Exodus through the Red Sea. Israel ate Passover (<em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>) (14th Abib), as the Lord died on the cross as the Passover lambs were slain; Israel left Egypt the next day (<em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>) (15th Abib) and journeyed three days (<em><a href='B:20 8:27'>Exo 8:27</a></em>) (15th-17th Abib), and the Lord Jesus was three days in the tomb. Israel then came through the Red Sea (17th Abib), connecting with the Lord's being resurrected. As we come out of the baptismal water, we really are united with the resurrected Lord- a new creation. His newness of life, His deliverance and successful exodus from the world- all this becomes ours. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel, on the houses in which they shall eat it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Time and again we find that the local pagan myths about Satan are alluded to and deconstructed by Moses. It has been observed that the Passover ritual of smearing the blood of the sacrifice on the doorposts was very similar to what Bedouin tribes have been doing in the Middle East for millennia- they smear the blood on their tent poles and tent entrances when they erect a new home or tent, in order to keep 'satan' figures away (Roland De Vaux, <em>Studies In Old Testament Sacrifice</em> (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961) p. 7). But the Exodus record is at pains to point out that the 'Destroyer' was one of Yahweh's Angels; and thus it was ultimately Yahweh Himself who slew the firstborn in those homes without the daubed blood. Again- yet again- we see a pagan idea concerning 'satan' being taken up and reinterpreted in light of the fact that the 'satan' figures don't really exist, and God is the ultimate and unrivalled source of disaster. See on <em><a href='B:20 21:6'>Exo 21:6</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the blood was not to be placed on the threshold, lest it be trodden under foot in disrespect (<em><a href='B:650 10:29'>Heb 10:29</a></em>). It clearly looked forward to the blood of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a></em>). This seems one of many things in the Passover commandments which was relevant only for that first Passover, and was not an abiding part of the later Passover ritual; for the lambs were slain at the sanctuary and the blood put on the altar, not on the individual homes of the Israelites. Thus the command not to allow Gentiles to participate was only for the first Passover, whereas in the later Passover legislation they were allowed to. See on :9,11.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Grandparents would have nervously eyed their firstborn, who would likewise have watched or cuddled their firstborn, summoning all their faith to believe in the power of that blood which they had publicly associated themselves with.&nbsp;Such should be the pattern of our ecclesial life on the eve of the Lord's coming, which was prefigured by Passover night. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They shall eat the flesh in that night, roasted with fire, and unleavened bread. They shall eat it with bitter herbs- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Passover, as the prototype breaking of bread, featured bitter herbs to remind Israel of their bitter experience in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a></em>). The breaking of bread should likewise focus our attention on the fact that return to the world is a return to bondage and bitterness, not freedom. Israel didn't learn this lesson, they forgot the bitterness of Egypt, and longed to return to it. The idea was that the sweetness of the lamb's roasted meat was to assuage the bitterness of the herbs; and we see here prefigured the intended effect of the Lord's sacrifice.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Don’t eat it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roasted with fire; with its head, its legs and its inner parts- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were told specifically that the Passover lamb must be roasted and not boiled (<em><a href='B:20 12:9'>Exo 12:9</a></em> uses two distinct words for 'boiled' and 'roasted'.). But the word used in <em><a href='B:20 12:9'>Exo 12:9</a></em> for "boiled" is that used in <em><a href='B:50 16:7'>Deu 16:7</a></em> of how the Passover could be boiled, although many Bible versions misleadingly translate the word there as "roast". The translators need not have feared such contradiction. For it is the contradiction of grace. Moses in <em><a href='B:50 16:2'>Deu 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:7'>Deu 16:7</a></em> was allowing a less strict observation of the Passover than originally intended, typical of the way Deuteronomy, 'the second law', seems to make concessions to Israel's weaknesses. Or it could be that here we have another example of where the Passover regulations given in Exodus were specific only to that time at the exodus. Thus a foreigner was not allowed to eat of that sacrifice, but foreigners were welcome to eat of the Passover later.&nbsp;&nbsp;See on :7,11.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The prohibition against boiling may have been because of the desire that no bone of the lamb be broken. It was to be roasted on a spit, whereas a lamb would never have fitted into a pot as required for boiling. It would have had to be cut up into parts.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is the possibility of living before God on different levels. Hence nothing was to remain, but God foresaw that some would allow part of the sacrifice to remain. This was a concession to human weakness, and reflects God's awareness of human liability to failure. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is how you shall eat it: with your belt on your waist, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is Yahweh’s Passover-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here we have another example of where the Passover regulations given in Exodus were specific only to that time at the exodus. Thus a foreigner was not allowed to eat of that sacrifice, but foreigners were welcome to eat of the Passover later.&nbsp; See on :7,9.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This captures the spirit of expectancy and readiness to leave at any moment- which we should have, as we, too, await the coming of the angel.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and animal-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The angel of death" is an idea picked up by Moses in his account of the Passover deliverance, to show that the Angel of death is not in fact Mot but an Angel of Yahweh, completely under His control. For it was none less than Yahweh Himself who slew the firstborn of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:11-12'>Exo 12:11-12</a></em>). Likewise it was Yahweh's Angel who played the role of the 'Angel of death' in smiting the Assyrian army dead (<em><a href='B:290 37:36'>Isa 37:36</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plagues specifically targetted Egyptian gods: Nile water turned to blood = HAPI – the god of the spirit of the Nile; Frogs = HEKOT – the goddess of magic who had a frog’s head; “The dust of the land” turned to lice or gnats (<em><a href='B:20 8:16'>Exo 8:16</a></em>) = SEB – god of the dust of the earth; “Swarms of beetles” (<em><a href='B:20 8:21'>Exo 8:21</a></em> Hebrew) = RA and the forerunner of BEELZEBUB were likened to beetles; much pagan Egyptian jewellery features beetles; Murrain of cattle = APIS – the sacred bull god; Boils (<em><a href='B:20 9:8-9'>Exo 9:8-9</a></em>) = NEIT – the queen of the heavens; Thunder and hail = SHU – god of the atmosphere; Darkness = RA – the sun god; Locusts = SERAIJA – protector of Egypt from locusts.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The “gods” are spoken of for a moment as real and existing, in order to show Yahweh’s total superiority over them to the point that they didn’t exist. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em>); their idols (“gods”) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise “demons” is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 1:32'>Mar 1:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:34'>Mar 1:34</a></em>). The judgment upon Egypt’s gods is brought out by an otherwise obscure reference in <em><a href='B:20 7:19'>Exo 7:19</a></em> to how “there shall be blood in all the land of Egypt on wood and in stone”. “Wood and stone” is a term usually used in the Bible for idols; and “the Egyptian priests used to wash the images of their gods in water every day early in the morning”. Thus the gods were shown to be effectively dead and bleeding. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whenever God speaks about His Name, it is in the context of His emphasizing His huge commitment to Israel as His people, often in the face of their weakness (<em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:26'>Exo 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:2'>Exo 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:5-6'>Eze 20:5-6</a></em>). The very meaning of God's Name is of itself encouraging- although it is somewhat masked in English translations. God 'is' not just in the sense that He exists, but in that He 'is' there with and for us. The verb behind 'YHWH' was "originally causative", i.e. God not only 'is' but He causes things to happen. We aren't to understand Him as passive, just a stone cold Name... but rather passionately active and causative in our sometimes apparently static and repetitive lives.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The blood shall be to you for a token on the houses where you are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be on you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Pass over" is literally 'hover over'. The angel of death, "the destroyer", went out to slay all the firstborn. But the Passover Angel hovered over the doors of the Israelites who had daubed blood on their door posts, and stopped the Destroyer from slaying in that house. We see here an example of Angelic cooperation. The slaying of the Egyptians apparently happened in a moment, so this is representing things from a human point of view. We are invited to imagine the Destroyer going from house to house, and the Passover Angel hovering over Israelite houses. But the whole thing happened in a moment of time as we understand time. The meaning of time was collapsed, just as will happen at the time of the Lord's second coming- which Passover night typified. This collapsing of time would involve the collapsing of space as well, if Einstein indeed got it right about the space-time relationship. This helps us to better cope with the apparent logistic problems which arise when considering the nature of the judgment seat, with millions of people having a personal interview with the Lord Jesus at one place on earth.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Token" is the word used for the "mark" set upon Cain which preserved him from being slain (<em><a href='B:10 4:15'>Gen 4:15</a></em>). The similarity is intended; Israel were being presented as sinful Cain, but they as sinners were being saved by grace. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This day shall be to you for a memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to Yahweh: throughout your generations you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The feasts of Yahweh have now been fulfilled in the Lord Jesus. "<em>Olahm</em>", "forever", literally means 'to the vanishing point', the point where time can no longer be perceived. Of itself it doesn't mean 'infinity'. Indeed it could be argued that there is no Biblical Hebrew word for literal eternity. And this is why "forever" doesn't have to mean literal eternity, but a period, the end of which isn't in view at the time. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; even the first day you shall put away yeast out of your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The leaven or yeast in our context is to be understood as the leaven of malice and wickedness (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). The search for leaven at the time of the Passover would therefore look ahead to our self examination at the breaking of bread.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Being "cut off from Israel" may not mean that the person must be slain. For then the phrase "cut off from the earth" would have been used (as in <em><a href='B:240 2:22'>Pro 2:22</a></em> and often). The idea is that the person who ate leaven (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>) or was not circumcised (<em><a href='B:10 17:14'>Gen 17:14</a></em>) was excluded from the community of God's people because they had broken or despised the covenant which made them His people. But there is no record of Israel keeping a list of 'cut off from Israel' Israelites and excluding them from keeping the feasts. So we conclude this means that God would consider such persons as cut off from His people. He would do the cutting off, and not men. In His book, they were "cut off". But there was no legal nor practical mechanism provided to Israel to manage the 'cutting off from Israel' of those who despised the covenant. The cutting off was done in God's eyes, in Heaven's record, and the Israelites were intended to continue to fellowship with such persons at the feasts. This is a strong argument for an open table, and for not seeking to make church excommunication the equivalent of this cutting off of the disobedient from the people of Israel. This explains why being "cut off from Israel" is the punishment stated for doing things which man could not see and judge- secretly breaking the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 31:14'>Exo 31:14</a></em>), eating peace offerings whilst being unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em> - for how were others to know whether someone had touched the unclean, or was experiencing an unclean bodily emission), eating meat with blood still in it (<em><a href='B:30 17:10'>Lev 17:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:14'>Lev 17:14</a></em>), not adequately humbling the soul (<em><a href='B:30 23:29'>Lev 23:29</a></em>), not keeping Passover (<em><a href='B:40 9:13'>Num 9:13</a></em>), being presumptuous (<em><a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a></em> - only God can judge that), not washing after touching a dead body (<em><a href='B:40 19:13'>Num 19:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:20'>Num 19:20</a></em>). This is why <em><a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a></em> makes it explicit that "I (Yahweh personally) will set My face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people". It is Yahweh who does the cutting off and not men (also <em><a href='B:90 2:33'>1Sa 2:33</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is the first time we read of "convocations". "Convocation" is LXX <em>ekklesia</em>. This is the word rendered "church" in the New Testament. We could reason from this therefore that "church" specifically refers to a gathering of God's people. At that time and during those moments, they are a church. When the entire community of believers is referred to as "church", this is how God views them- as if they are all gathered together at a gathering or convocation before Him. The word in its Biblical usage therefore doesn't refer to what we might call a denomination or fellowship. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No kind of work shall be done in them, except that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the lead up to the feast (cp. our Lord's return), "no manner of work shall be done, save that which ever man must (do to) eat", or "that which every man must necessarily do" (LXX; <em><a href='B:20 12:16'>Exo 12:16</a></em>). Thus in our lives now, having food and clothing we should be content, not working any more than necessary, so that "the loins of our mind" will be girded, looking forward to the Passover feast. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this same day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They were to see their own redemption in the historical redemption of Israel. And indeed, David and later believers continually alluded to the Red Sea deliverance, as if it had happened to them personally. And we can likewise. Our membership of the body of believers gives us connection with all other believers, not just those alive today, but also historically.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty first day of the month at evening- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These seven days were to recall the seven days of creation; for the exodus was a new creation of Israel, out of the water of the Red Sea. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There shall be no yeast found in your houses for seven days, for whoever eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a foreigner, or one who is born in the land-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The run-up to Passover was to feature a business-like searching of the house for leaven, reflecting the close self-examination which we should undertake individually and ecclesially ("your houses") in this prelude to the Passover-coming of our Lord. See on :21,42. The picture of Israel in their family units huddled together around the Lamb, desperately focusing their attention on that saving blood, watching and praying, examining themselves- this is us, right now. For there can be no serious doubt that the second coming is almost upon our generation. The run up to the final tribulation will provoke a "praying always, that ye may be accounted worthy... to stand before the Son of man" (<em><a href='B:490 21:36'>Luk 21:36</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven...of malice and wickedness" (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). The disciples’ question at the first breaking of bread, “Lord, is it I?” is another prototype of the command to examine ourselves at the feast (<em><a href='B:470 26:22'>Mat 26:22</a></em>). Combining Paul's command to examine ourselves that we are really focusing upon our Lord's sacrifice, and the Exodus allusion which implies that we should examine our own lives for wickedness, we conclude that if we properly reflect upon Christ and His victory for us, then we will inevitably be aware of our own specific failures which Christ really has vanquished. But this will come as a by-product of truly grasping the fullness of the Lord's victory. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall eat nothing leavened. In all your habitations you shall eat unleavened bread’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The prohibition is repeated so often. "Leaven" literally means that which is sour, and is translated "cruel" (<em><a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a></em>) and "grievous" (<em><a href='B:230 73:21'>Psa 73:21</a></em>). Paul therefore sees leaven as a symbol of malice and wickedness, which we must purge out (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said to them, Draw out, and take lambs according to your families, and kill the Passover- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The focus of the Passover feast was the lamb, and this should be the centre of our thinking in these last days. Some very intense Hebrew words are used to describe their association of themselves with it: "Draw out (to seize) and take you a lamb... strike ('lay the hand on', a word used about rape) the lintel... with the blood" (<em><a href='B:20 12:21-22'>Exo 12:21-22</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em> may refer to this; we are not to forsake assembling ourselves together in Christ, on pain of spiritual and eternal death. We note the association of hyssop with the Lord's death on the cross (<em><a href='B:500 19:29'>Joh 19:29</a></em>). That hyssop had been dipped in red wine, representing blood, and the Lord surely saw the relevance to Himself. "I am that hyssop", He would have thought. On the cross, He was the door (<em><a href='B:500 10:9'>Joh 10:9</a></em>), and He experienced hyssop with red wine (representing blood) brushed against Him. Just as the doors at Passover had blood brushed onto them using a hyssop plant, and this was the basis of Israel's salvation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel, and on the two doorposts, Yahweh will pass over the door, and will not allow the Destroyer to come in to your houses to strike you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Passover Angel would "pass (hover) over the door and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you". 'The destroyer' refers to an Angel- Psalms 78 speaks of the "Angels of evil" who brought the plagues, and as the plague of the firstborn was one of them, it follows that this too must have been brought about by an Angel. The same Angel i referred to in <em><a href='B:300 51:1'>Jer 51:1</a></em> - the “destroying spirit” (“wind”, AV) who was sent forth by God to smite Babylon; note how Revelation also describes Babylon as being destroyed by a singular Angel. In another Angelic context we read: “O Lord my Lord; will you be the destroyer of the remnant of Israel?” (<em><a href='B:330 9:8'>Eze 9:8</a></em> Heb.). “Let the Angel of the Lord persecute them” (<em><a href='B:230 35:5-6'>Psa 35:5-6</a></em>) has the same Angel in mind. The destroyer Angel is perhaps alluded to in <em><a href='B:220 18:13'>Job 18:13</a></em>: “The firstborn of death”. <em><a href='B:220 33:23'>Job 33:23</a></em> LXX certainly is relevant: “Though there should be one thousand Angels of death…”. This same 'destroyer' Angel is referred to again in the context of being present with Israel to punish them if they disobeyed in <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em> -"they were destroyed of the destroyer". So we have here on this first Passover night the situation where one Angel is commissioned to do a certain task- in this case kill all firstborn in Egypt- and goes ahead with this task blind to any other consideration, e. g. whether the people concerned were obedient Israelites or not. Therefore another Angel was needed, presumably more powerful or senior to the 'destroyer', to stop the faithful Israelites being killed. Of course God could have given the 'destroyer' additional instructions about not killing the Jews; but it seems to be God's way of working both amongst us and among the Angels to assign each a specific role in the execution of His purpose, and to take pleasure in seeing each Angel or saint working in loving co-operation with another, after the pattern of the Angelic co-operation. <em><a href='B:330 20:8-14'>Eze 20:8-14</a></em> talks more about this destroyer Angel: "Neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out My fury upon them, to accomplish My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I wrought for My name's sake, that it should not be polluted among the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt. Wherefore&nbsp; I&nbsp; caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them My statutes. . My Sabbaths. . the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness. . but I wrought for My name's sake, that it should not be polluted" . The destroyer Angel went out through the midst of the land of Egypt to kill the firstborn. He wanted to kill the Jews too because they were not forsaking the idols of Egypt- i. e. they were preparing to take them out of Egypt with them (<em><a href='B:20 13:17'>Exo 13:17</a></em> and <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em> lend support here). "I"- God manifest now in the Passover Angel- "wrought for My name's sake" (v. 9) against the Destroyer that this should not be done. He remembered how He had "made myself known unto them" in the burning bush, by saying there "I am the Lord your God "(v. 5). "Mine eye (the Passover Angel) spared them from destroying them ",v. 17; i. e. from the work of the Destroyer Angel, both in Egypt at the night of Passover and also in the wilderness. Notice&nbsp; how God is spoken of as both wanting to destroy them and also striving for His Name's sake (born by the Angels) so this should not happen. It seems sensible to interpret this by reference to the two powerful Angels &nbsp;active at this time, perhaps representing the groups of Angels of good and Angels of evil (i. e. disaster bringing) which appear to be in Heaven. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall observe this thing for an ordinance to you and to your sons forever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is such repeated emphasis upon the need to celebrate this redemption. Salvation was achieved for us in the death of the Lord Jesus on both a collective and personal level. Our personal salvation is on account of our participation in the collective redemption of God's children which He achieved on the cross. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall happen when you have come to the land which Yahweh will give you, according as he has promised, that you shall keep this service- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be that the "you" refers to the people of God in a collective sense. But the more comfortable application is to that generation to whom Moses was then speaking. This promise of entering the land was solemnly made, with uplifted hand as it were, to that generation who left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:30'>Num 14:30</a></em>). But they did not enter the land, as <em><a href='B:40 14:30'>Num 14:30</a></em> makes clear. This was because Israel broke their side of the covenant, and did not in fact want to enter the land; and continued serving the idols of Egypt, which they took with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). But that promise was guaranteed by the fact that "I will bring you into the land... I am Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>). The very essence of Yahweh, that 'I will' save, as surely as 'I will be who I will be', a saviour God, was fought against by Israel's idolatry and unfaithfulness to the covenant. And because 'Yahweh' involves His character, which includes His judgment of sin and not turning a blind eye to it (<em><a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a></em>), human intransigence and faithlessness was allowed to as it were even counteract His most essential 'being' a saviour God for His beloved people. But that salvation was recalculated and reinterpreted with reference to another generation, and to the people of God generally rather than to the initially intended audience.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It will happen, when your children ask you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A striking difference between the Pentateuch and other contemporary legal codes is that those codes are straight codices of statutes; whereas God's law isn't like that. It is commandment interspersed between historical documents and incidents. We read of some incident in the wilderness journey, then we have some commandments recounted, then another incident, some more commandments, etc. This surely reflects how God intended obedience to His law to not be a legalistic exercise- it was a code for real human life, which should affect the very spirit of human existence in a way which no dry legal code really could. It was to set a rhythm of life, revealing how that law was "for our good always, that God might preserve us" (<em><a href='B:50 6:24'>Deu 6:24</a></em>)- the person who obeyed the law was to live in it (<em><a href='B:420 2:4'>Hab 2:4</a></em> etc.). The motive for obedience to the law was not so that God might give them salvation or status as His people- it was precisely because He had done that, by grace, that they were to respond in obedience (<em><a href='B:20 12:26'>Exo 12:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:8'>Exo 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:14'>Exo 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:20'>Deu 6:20</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that you shall say, ‘It is the sacrifice of Yahweh’s Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He struck the Egyptians, and spared our houses’. The people bowed their heads and worshiped- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The land was 'smitten' in <em><a href='B:20 8:2'>Exo 8:2</a></em> as a foretaste of the 'striking / smiting' of the Egyptian firstborn (<em><a href='B:20 12:23'>Exo 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:27'>Exo 12:27</a></em> s.w.). It was an appeal for Pharaoh's repentance, in the hope that the final smiting of the firstborn would not be necessary. It was God's intention and hope to save Pharaoh, but he would not. God "delivered" or "spared" (s.w.) His people from Egypt and Pharaoh, just as He delivered Moses personally from the sword of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 18:4'>Exo 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 18:8'>Exo 18:8</a></em> s.w.). Moses was the representative of his people, they were saved "in" him, and baptized into him (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). They were apostate idolaters (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>), and were in a way only saved "in" Moses, just as we are saved "in Christ". They were "spared" or delivered not only from Egypt, but also from the wrath of God which was upon them (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel went and did so; as Yahweh had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their obedience is presented as total, but I will suggest on :37 that they were not all obedient, and many Israelite firstborn died that night. The prophets will later lament that Israel were disobedient to Yahweh from Egypt onwards. But He had decided to save them by grace, and so their limited obedience is counted as total.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened at midnight, that Yahweh struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of livestock-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that Egypt had a system of prisons and dungeons, as we know from the story of Joseph. This begs the question as to why Moses was not slain or imprisoned by Pharaoh- for that would have been the logical way to stop this troublesome man from bringing plagues upon Egypt. The answer seems to be that Pharaoh had a conscience, and he feared to lay hands on Moses. His failure to follow that strong conscience was therefore the more culpable and tragic. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was the foremost intercessor for Israel, and is actually called ‘the Paraclete’ in the Midrash here on <em><a href='B:20 12:29'>Exo 12:29</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where there was not one dead- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This "great cry" is described with the same phrase used in <em><a href='B:10 27:34'>Gen 27:34</a></em>, when Esau cries with a great cry- realizing that he had been rejected from God's purpose and that could not now be put right. Whilst the great cry was indeed because of their loss, the connection with Esau is to make the point that despite all God's efforts, they had turned down His invitation to have a part in His purpose- and realized that all too late.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There may have been some literal houses where there were no firstborns present. So I suggest that "house" here refers to a family unity rather than houses as in buildings.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, get out from among my people, both you and the children of Israel; and go, serve Yahweh, as you have said!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At the point of <em><a href='B:20 10:29'>Exo 10:29</a></em> Moses had told Pharaoh that "I will see your face again no more". So perhaps they didn't attend this meeting. Or perhaps we are to read <em><a href='B:20 10:29'>Exo 10:29</a></em> as meaning that Moses would not again appear before God's face again in intercession for Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Pharaoh and Egypt were now beyond Moses' intercession and prayer. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Take both your flocks and your herds, as you have said, and be gone; and bless me also!- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Earlier, Pharaoh had failed to totally capitulate to Yahweh. He had tried to reach a negotiated settlement, whereby their animals would remain behind. This was especially significant because the Egyptian livestock had been destroyed by the plagues. Now he appears to totally capitulate, and asks for Moses to also "bless" him, a term which can imply forgiveness. Again we note that he doesn't pray himself to Yahweh, but asks Moses to do so for him. And again we see that his repentance may have been absolutely sincere at that point in time; but true repentance is not the emotion or passion of a moment, but an abiding way of thought and action. And he failed to retain that, thus becoming a warning to all who experience 'repentance' as a passing experience. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Egyptians were urgent with the people, to send them out of the land in haste, for they said, We are all dead men- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They feared that the death of the firstborn was but a prelude to mass slaughter, just as they now perceived that the plagues had been progressively demanding upon them. They feared the next step. We know that there were only ten plagues, but they didn't have our perspective. For all they knew, there could be more coming. Eventually, man is brought to conformity with God's demands- they urged the people to leave immediately, having tried to stop them doing so before. But the lesson is to willingly submit to God's ways, rather than having to be forced to through the process of judgment and condemnation.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading troughs being bound up in their clothes on their shoulders- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We wonder as to the extent to which the Israelites knew the game plan. Because although they were expecting to leave Egypt, we have the impression of a haste which reflects surprise at the speed of the whole turn of events. This exactly prefigures our position at the Lord's coming, which Passover night typified. They had been commanded to keep seven days of unleavened bread after the night of the 14th Abib. But we get the impression that they were not intending to be obedient to that. They were forced to be obedient to it by circumstance- they grabbed the dough before they had a chance to leaven it, because the Egyptians were almost literally pushing them out of the country. It could be argued that "troughs" were only required if they had the intention of making leavened bread. Unleavened flat bread would not have required them. Thus :39 emphasizes that they only ate unleavened bread because they didn't have time to bake leavened bread. The salvation of this disobedient people was indeed by grace alone, as is ours.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and clothing-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used of the vessels taken from the Gentile world and dedicated to the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 11:2'>Exo 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 6:19'>Jos 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 8:10'>2Sa 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 7:51'>1Ki 7:51</a></em>). The generosity of others in Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to spirituality. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:150 6:4'>Ezr 6:4</a></em> records how God moved the local authorities to pronounce that the residents around the returning exiles should give them silver, gold and goods. This was an exact re-living of how Israel left Egypt with Egypt's gold and silver (<em><a href='B:20 12:35'>Exo 12:35</a></em>). Yet most of the Jews didn't want to return, they didn't want to live out the type. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are examples galore of God acting on the minds of men to give them a certain attitude which they would not otherwise have had (consider how He gave Saul another heart, or gave Israel favour in the eyes of the Egyptians so that they lent to them, <em><a href='B:20 12:36'>Exo 12:36</a></em>). This is the work of the Holy Spirit directly upon human hearts, to this day.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They despoiled the Egyptians- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Despoiled" is the same word commonly used for God's sparing or delivering His people from the Egyptians (s.w. :27). It is an unusual word choice if the idea was solely "despoiled". The hint may be that Israel delivered the Egyptians, in that we are now going to read that some Egyptians left Egypt along with them (:38).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel travelled from Raamses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot who were men, besides children- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The number of firstborn males after Israel left Egypt was remarkably small (around 20,000, <em><a href='B:40 3:43'>Num 3:43</a></em>). Women in most primitive societies have an average of 7 births. this would mean that given a total population of around 2,800,000 on leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>), there should have been around 400,000 firstborn males. But instead, there is only a fraction of this number. Why? Did all Israel eat the Passover?&nbsp;Were many in fact slain. My suggestion- and this is well in the category of things you will never know for sure and can only ponder- is that many Hebrew firstborns died on Passover night. Israel were warned that if they did not properly keep the Passover, “the Destroyer” Angel would kill their firstborn (<em><a href='B:20 12:23'>Exo 12:23</a></em>). “The Destroyer” is mentioned in <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>: “Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the Destroyer” (<em>olothreutes; </em>this is a proper noun in the Greek). Who was the Destroyer? If Scripture interprets Scripture, it was the ‘Destroyer’ Angel of Passover night. In similar vein <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> speaks of “He (the Angel) that destroyed (Gk. <em>olothreuo</em>) the firstborn”.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word translated as "thousand" can mean a family, or some other administrative division. Many of the 'number problems' in the Hebrew Bible are only really resoluble using this approach. And that may be in view in the census of Israel taken in Numbers 1, and in the statement that six hundred 'thousands' of footmen left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>). The census of Numbers 1 gives figures such as those in <em><a href='B:40 1:21'>Num 1:21</a></em> for Reuben, which could be rendered: "forty six families ('thousands') and five hundred (men)". Although a "hundred" might also refer to an administrative division. The total in Numbers 1 would then be 598 families with a total of 5550 men. The sum given in the second census in Numbers 26 comes out as roughly the same, with 596 families amounting to 5730 men. On this basis, the total population (including women and children) would be anything between 20,000 to 40,000. This would enable us to make better sense of the statements that Israel were the smallest numerically of all the surrounding peoples (<em><a href='B:50 7:1'>Deu 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:7'>Deu 7:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:23'>Deu 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). If we insist upon taking "thousand" literally in <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>, then 600,000 male foot soldiers would imply a total population of between two and six million. The population density would have been intense, and far greater than that of many modern nations. Estimates of global population at the time suggest it was only about 40 million, and the population of Egypt was a maximum of three million (probably far less). If the Israelites were smaller than the other nations, and they numbered say 5 million, then the total population of the seven peoples of Canaan would have been at least 40 million. The territory of Canaan could not have supported such numbers. Only 70 Israelites came into Egypt with Jacob. Expansion over 430 years to several million is not realistic. This approach helps us better understand how all the men of war marched around Jericho (<em><a href='B:60 6:3'>Jos 6:3</a></em>). If there were literally 600,000 men then the city would have had to be many kilometers in circumference for them all to march around it seven times in one day. Archaeological evidence from Jericho simply doesn't support the idea of such a vast city. If Israel numbered say 5 million people, and recall there was also a "mixed multitude" with them, then if they marched 10 abreast this would require a column stretching around 1000 kilometers. <em><a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a></em> seems to say they marched five abreast. Their promises to Edom and the Amorites to march only along a highway and not spill over it (<em><a href='B:40 20:17'>Num 20:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:22'>Num 21:22</a></em>) is unrealistic if they had such huge numbers. A figure of 600 family units leaving Egypt is more realistic; otherwise we start to wonder how ever all the Israelites, millions of them, came to be in one place at one time on Passover night. &nbsp;This would then make better sense of <em><a href='B:20 23:30'>Exo 23:30</a></em> GNB: "I will drive them out little by little, until there are enough of you to take possession of the land". This indeed sounds as if Israel were the smallest of the nations, and not a huge nation comprising several million people. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A mixed multitude went up also with them, with flocks, herds, and even very much livestock- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew text says that "a great mixture" of people "went up also" with Israel out of Egypt.&nbsp;There can be no doubt that this refers to the many references in the promises that the seed would come to include such a "mixed&nbsp;multitude" (<em><a href='B:10 17:6'>Gen 17:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 26:4'>Gen 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:3'>Gen 28:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em>), thereby showing that by reason of leaving Egypt and passing through the Red Sea these Gentiles became part of the seed (cp. <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em>).&nbsp;But the supreme fulfilment of these promises will be after the 'Red Sea' of the last days. We note that this "mixed multitude" had many animals. This means they had been obedient to the call to bring their animals into shelter during the plague of hail.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt; for it wasn’t leavened, because they were thrust out of Egypt, and couldn’t wait, neither had they prepared for themselves any food- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :34, this emphasizes that they only ate unleavened bread because they didn't have time to bake leavened bread- not because they were obedient to the command just given to eat unleavened bread for seven days after Passover night. The salvation of this disobedient people was indeed by grace alone, as is ours.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Apart from the jewellery taken from the Egyptians for the construction of the tabernacle, the total unmaterialism of Israel on Passover night is something to be marvelled at.&nbsp;&nbsp; They only had the clothes they wore, and just the one pair of shoes.&nbsp;This is confirmed by the reminder that these things were miraculously preserved throughout the wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:50 8:4'>Deu 8:4</a></em>). It is also highlighted that they had no food when they left - they just grabbed some dough which later they baked into "unleavened cakes" (<em><a href='B:20 12:34'>Exo 12:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:39'>Exo 12:39</a></em>). Our Lord's perceptive mind picked out the picture of Israel as they were then, as an illustration of how his disciples should be on their preaching mission. "He called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth... and commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: but be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats". All this is couched in the language of Israel on Passover night. His next words for them appear to be stating the obvious, unless they allude to Israel remaining at whatever place they reached until the fire and cloud moved them on: "In what place soever ye enter... there abide till ye depart from that place" (<em><a href='B:480 6:8-10'>Mar 6:8-10</a></em>). It must be remembered that God intended Israel to be a missionary nation, teaching the surrounding world of His ways by their example of obedience to His law. As Israel left Egypt with the gold and jewels of Egypt, so, Jesus implied, the disciples were to carry the precious things of the Gospel.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The meaning of this in the typology of the Passover is twofold:&nbsp; firstly, it teaches that one way of being properly prepared for the second coming after the pattern of Israel that night, is to live a life committed to preaching;&nbsp; this will keep the loins of our minds girded, ever looking for the Lord's return which we preach, and often depriving us of the temptations of materialism.&nbsp; And, secondly, those of the new Israel who are found ready at the angel's coming will be prepared and eager to start on the greatest missionary campaign of all, in the establishment of the Kingdom.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the time that the children of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred thirty years- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul, under Divine inspiration, measures this period from the time of the promises given to Abraham in Canaan (<em><a href='B:550 3:17'>Gal 3:17</a></em>). The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch here read "in Egypt and in the land of Canaan". And this reading of the text is clearly confirmed by the New Testament quotation and interpretation. Again we have an example of where the LXX is quoted in the New Testament in preference to the Masoretic Text. It is noteworthy however that the 430 years appears split into two groups of 215 years. From Abraham’s entry into Canaan to the birth of Isaac was 25 years (<em><a href='B:10 12:4'>Gen 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 17:1-21'>Gen 17:1-21</a></em>; Jacob was born when Isaac was 60 (<em><a href='B:10 25:26'>Gen 25:26</a></em>); and Jacob was 130 when he entered Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 47:9'>Gen 47:9</a></em>), totalling 215 years. This would then require that the Israelites were in Egypt for 215 years. This would be corroborated by <em><a href='B:20 13:18'>Exo 13:18</a></em> LXX "and in the fifth generation the children of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened at the end of four hundred thirty years, even the same day it happened, that all the armies of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>"All the hosts (Angels) of the Lord went out (with Israel) from the land of Egypt". See on <em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:4'>Exo 7:4</a></em>. The 400 years of <em><a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a></em> speak of Israel being foreigners in a land not theirs; and this would refer to their time in both Canaan and Egypt, seeing that Canaan was not fully given to them until the conquest. See on :40.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It is a night to be much observed to Yahweh for bringing them out from the land of Egypt. This is that night of Yahweh, to be much observed of all the children of Israel throughout their generations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because God preserved (s.w. "observed") His people, they were to observe the Passover feast. We see here the mutuality encouraged between God and His children. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Not surprisingly, in the light of what was noted on :19,21, Passover night was to be "a night of watching" (<em><a href='B:20 12:42'>Exo 12:42</a></em> RV mg.), strongly suggesting "watching in prayer" (<em><a href='B:560 6:18'>Eph 6:18</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:670 4:7'>1Pe 4:7</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:540 11:27'>2Co 11:27</a></em>?). Similarly those who are found "watching" at the Lord's midnight coming (cp. that of the Passover angel) will be found acceptable (<em><a href='B:490 12:37'>Luk 12:37</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel both kept Passover and went through the Red Sea at night.&nbsp;Indeed, it is stressed six times in Exodus 12 that it was “night", and hence <em><a href='B:50 16:1'>Deu 16:1</a></em> reminds them to carefully keep the Passover (i.e. at night), “for... thy God brought thee forth&nbsp; out of Egypt by night".&nbsp;Other latter day prophecies speak of the events of the second coming being at "night" :&nbsp; Lot left Sodom in the very early hours of the morning;&nbsp; and it was "at midnight (that) there was a cry made" informing the virgins of their Lord's return (<em><a href='B:470 25:6'>Mat 25:6</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:490 12:35-39'>Luk 12:35-39</a></em> speaks of the Master coming at night and then sharing the Passover meal with those who are "watching".&nbsp;Israel were told to 'watch' throughout that first Passover night (<em><a href='B:20 12:42'>Exo 12:42</a></em> RV mg.), eating the meal with loins girded. Our Lord matches this with "let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning", referring to the virgins parable. Israel eating that meal together, huddled around the slain lamb, the oil burning lamps revealing their tense faces, is therefore a picture of what the new Israel should be like just prior to their deliverance.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover. No foreigner shall eat of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I explain on :48 that these commands were specifically for the first Passover; and I have noted earlier in this chapter various other features of the commands which were only relevant to the first Passover. Eating in haste with belts on, ready to leave Egypt, was clearly only relevant to them then. Likewise the daubing of blood on lintels was replaced by offering the Passover lambs at the sanctuary and daubing the blood on the altar there. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat of it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I have argued on :43,48 that these commands were specifically for the first Passover. The idea may be that those Egyptian members of Israelite households were to be circumcised on the 10th of Abib, and then they could eat the Passover, and would have recovered after three days in time to leave Egypt.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:40 9:14'>Num 9:14</a></em> is clear that later, these people could do so if they wished. But they were not allowed to at the time of the first Passover, because God was making a very clear distinction between Israel and Egypt; and He wanted the Egyptians to accept covenant relationship with Him and be circumcised.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry out anything of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall you break a bone of it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :43,48, this was specific to the first Passover. For in future, the Passover was to be sacrificed at the sanctuary, and not kept in individual houses. The Israelites were "delivered", but the same word is translated "spared" in :27, when we read of how practically this was articulated- the houses of Israel were spared / delivered. Salvation depended upon being in "the house" of Israel. The efficacy of the sacrificed lamb was predicated upon being located within the house of Israel. Eating it outside of those houses was not going to be effective. The Egyptians had to humble themselves and come within the houses of Israel. Likewise there must be some level of identity with the people of God, otherwise the slain lamb, the Lord Jesus, will not save isolated individuals who refuse to take that step of identity. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the congregation of Israel shall keep it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Personal engagement with the slain lamb was absolutely required. It was no good thinking that 'I am an Israelite, so I shall be saved', or 'My family are keeping it in the house next door, I shall therefore be saved'. And here we see a challenge to all who (however subconsciously) consider that a vague association with Christian culture will save them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When a stranger shall live as a foreigner with you, and will keep the Passover to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one who is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat of it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :43. It has been argued that the breaking of bread is the equivalent of the Jewish Passover, and <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> says that only the circumcised could eat of it. Here are a few comments:<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Whatever interpretation we wish to place upon <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em>, we have to reconcile it with the above evidence for the openness of the Lord Jesus with regard to His table fellowship, using it to bring people to Him, rather than as a test of fellowship or intellectual / moral purity of understanding or living.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Peter ate with the uncircumcised- and got into trouble with the Judaist brethren exactly because the Law had forbidden the uncircumcised from eating the first Passover (<em><a href='B:510 11:3'>Act 11:3</a></em>). The Jews had put a (very large!) hedge around this law by forbidding Jews from eating with Gentiles period. Yet Peter was taught that this was wrong- and he ate with Gentiles, it seems even before they were baptized. But the point is, he had been taught by the vision that all the old Mosaic category distinctions of clean / unclean, circumcised / uncircumcised, had now been ended. It seems this was as large a challenge to the church in the 1st century as it is today. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Although the Passover and memorial meeting are related, the relation is at times by way of contrast rather than only similarity; e.g. in the first Passover, the families were to provide a lamb; whereas in the antitype, the Lord Jesus is the lamb of Divine and not human provision. The Paschal lamb of God takes away the whole world's sin, rather than just providing blood for the temporal redemption of Israel's firstborn, etc.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Circumcision under the new covenant doesn't refer to anything outward, visibly verifiable. For now "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter" (<em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>)- seeing we can't judge the secret things of others' hearts, how can we tell who is circumcised in heart or not? The 'sealing' of God's people today, the proof that they are the Lord's (<em><a href='B:620 2:19'>2Ti 2:19</a></em>), is not anything external, but the internal matter of being sealed with the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a></em>), or being sealed with a mark in the mind / forehead, as Revelation puts it (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:7:3'>Rev 7:3</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:4'>Rev 9:4</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- The Gentiles in Israel, circumcised or not, could keep the feast of unleavened bread (<em><a href='B:20 12:17-20'>Exo 12:17-20</a></em>) which was related to the Passover.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- If <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> is read on a literalistic level, i.e. that only the circumcised could eat the Passover, this would surely mean that no female could eat it? Yet this was not the case.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- It's <em><a href='B:40 9:14'>Num 9:14</a></em> which speaks in more general terms of whether or not a Gentile could partake of the Passover- and here it's made clear that yes he/she could, and no mention is made of being circumcised: "And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the Passover unto the Lord; according to the statute of the Passover, and according to the ordinance thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one statute, both for the stranger, and for him that is born in the land". <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Commands that were intended for subsequent generations often include the kind of rubric we meet in <em><a href='B:20 12:14'>Exo 12:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:17'>Exo 12:17</a></em>: "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord: throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever... therefore shall ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance for ever". But we don't meet that 'throughout your generations' with regard to the uncircumcised men not being allowed to eat it.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- Israel were told specifically that the Passover lamb must be roasted and not boiled (<em><a href='B:20 12:9'>Exo 12:9</a></em> uses two distinct words for 'boiled' and 'roasted'.). But the word used in <em><a href='B:20 12:9'>Exo 12:9</a></em> for "boiled" is that used in <em><a href='B:50 16:7'>Deu 16:7</a></em> of how the Passover could be boiled, although many Bible versions misleadingly translate the word there as "roast". The translators need not have feared such contradiction. For it is the contradiction of grace. Here we have another example of where the Passover regulations given in Exodus were specific only to that time at the exodus. Thus a foreigner was not allowed to eat of that sacrifice, but foreigners were welcome to eat of the Passover later. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- So my suggestion is that the command of <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> that no uncircumcised could eat of the Passover, and that the Gentiles amongst the people should be circumcised if they wanted to eat it, was specific to that first Passover. As Israel and the mixed multitude that went with them sat in Egypt under threat of losing their firstborn sons, they could find salvation by keeping the Passover and entering into covenant with God through circumcision. Both Jewish tradition and the implication of Moses not circumcising his sons is that the Jews in Egypt weren't circumcised; yet "all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised" (<em><a href='B:60 5:5'>Jos 5:5</a></em>). Implication would be that many were circumcised in order to keep the first Passover according to the command given them in Exodus 12. We could therefore take <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> as a specific command for those who kept the first Passover to be circumcised, rather than an ongoing principle. The Jewish sage Maimonides (<em>A Guide For The Perplexed</em> Vol. 3 ch. 46) explains: "The reason of the prohibition that the uncircumcised should not eat of it (Exod. xii. 48) is explained by our Sages as follows: The Israelites neglected circumcision during their long stay in Egypt". <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- This approach would explain why <em><a href='B:40 9:14'>Num 9:14</a></em> doesn't demand that Gentiles be circumcised to keep future Passovers; why there's no comment that the exclusion of the uncircumcised should be kept "throughout your generations"; and why <em><a href='B:20 12:50'>Exo 12:50</a></em> speaks as if Israel fully obeyed the command about circumcision and Passover eating in a once-off sense when they kept that first Passover. And of course this is the reason for many branches of Judaism welcoming uncircumcised Gentiles to the Passover celebration- for they don't understand <em><a href='B:20 12:48'>Exo 12:48</a></em> to preclude it, but rather <em><a href='B:40 9:14'>Num 9:14</a></em> encourages it. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>- This approach also helps answer a difficult question: Why was the lamb or kid kept for four days (<em><a href='B:20 12:2'>Exo 12:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>)? If the effects of circumcision take three days to wear off (<em><a href='B:10 34:25'>Gen 34:25</a></em>), it could be that the uncircumcised males were intended to circumcise themselves, chose the lamb, and then keep the Passover four days later. Some Jewish commentators claim that God fell in love with Israel whilst she was still in her blood (<em><a href='B:330 16:6'>Eze 16:6</a></em>) in that some Jews circumcised themselves at the time of the first Passover- hence one Rabbi speaks of the blood of circumcision and the blood of the first Passover running together.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One law shall be to him who is born at home, and to the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were Egyptians who lived amongst the Israelites, for they borrowed jewels from their Egyptian neighbours. But such material generosity was not going to save them. They too must follow the "law" of the lamb, Yahweh's law, and identify with the lamb.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the children of Israel did so. As Yahweh commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their obedience is presented as total, but I suggested on :37 that they were not all obedient, and many Israelite firstborn died that night. The prophets will later lament that Israel were disobedient to Yahweh from Egypt onwards. But He had decided to save them by grace, and so their limited obedience is counted as total.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened the same day, that Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God did this. But <em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em> and <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em> imply that they carried the Egyptian idols with them through the Red Sea. Indeed, <em><a href='B:330 20:16'>Eze 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:18'>Eze 20:18</a></em> state that God gave Israel in the wilderness His statutes and judgments, but they actually lived according to their own statutes and judgments; and therefore He appealed to the younger generation not to walk in the statutes and judgments of their parents, but in those which He had given them. But “the children rebelled against me; they walked not in my statutes, neither kept mine ordinances to do them, which if a man do, he shall live in them; they profaned my Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness” (<em><a href='B:330 20:21'>Eze 20:21</a></em>). Even in the wilderness, Israel didn’t keep the Sabbaths, and the younger generation refused God’s laws. Although unrecorded in the Pentateuch, <em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:23-24'>Eze 20:23-24</a></em> describes a threat from God to Israel, whilst they were still in the wilderness, that He would scatter them among the nations. Yet this drastic appeal went unheeded, because “their eyes were after their father’s idols”. They were so obsessed with the idols worshipped by their parents’ generation- the generation who left Egypt. Yet for all this, God did " not behold iniquity in Jacob" (<em><a href='B:40 23:21-22'>Num 23:21-22</a></em>), such was the righteousness imputed to them. And yet that generation were indeed types of us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It seems this legislation about the firstborn was given the same day they left Egypt (:3,4).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sanctify to me all of the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of animal. It is mine- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Levites had not yet been chosen as the priestly tribe. Perhaps it was God's initial intention that all the firstborn should be sanctified to His service, from whatever tribe. But this plan didn't work, and so He called one tribe to be His sanctified priests. And they also didn't really do their ministry, and so under the new covenant, all are priests.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to the people, Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand Yahweh brought you out from this place. No leavened bread shall be eaten- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'remembrance' was to be of the power of Yahweh's grace in as it were forcing Israel out of Egypt, when they actually wanted to remain there (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>), were idolatrous and had told Moses to leave them alone and let them serve the Egyptians. Yahweh's strength therefore refers to the power of His grace in continuing His program with them.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This day you go out in the month Abib- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Abib" is a young ear of green corn. The idea was that there was hope now of spiritual fruit to be brought forth.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be, when Yahweh shall bring you into the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, which he swore to your fathers to give you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This land inhabited by those tribes was significantly smaller than the territory sworn to the fathers, which was from Egypt to the Euphrates. It seems God had recalculated the extent of the inheritance, or at least realized that they needed a more limited objective to achieve first. He is so sensitive to our weaknesses.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall keep this service in this month-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The promised land was to flow with milk and honey to those who kept covenant. And yet Saul later precluded the people from experiencing the blessings of the covenant by petty legalism and a desire for personal control. The people were obedient to his word, but then totally disobeyed Yahweh's command about not eating blood as a result of it (<em><a href='B:90 14:25'>1Sa 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This refers to the feast of unleavened bread, which was not the same as the feast of the Passover, which was seven days earlier.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall yeast be seen with you, in all your borders- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their "borders" aren't defined, but the idea was that their houses in Egypt were to become as the entire territory they then controlled- be it their individual land inheritances, or the entire land. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall tell your son in that day, saying, ‘It is because of that which Yahweh did for me when I came out of Egypt’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Jewish understanding of hope and memory is such that past events can be presented again through rituals like the Passover in a very palpable manner; and “This is my body… this is my blood” is a classic example. Paul’s language of “showing the Lord’s death” at the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 11:26'>1Co 11:26</a></em>) is rooted in the Passover being a ‘showing’ of what God had done in the death of the Paschal lamb (<em><a href='B:20 13:8'>Exo 13:8</a></em> Heb.). The breaking of bread is therefore a calling to an acting out, just as the Passover was. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Passover meal was in order to remember the great salvation which God had wrought for all Israel at the Red Sea. Egypt, representing the power of sin, was gloriously vanquished there. Yet the faithful Israelite of all ages was to also proclaim that "This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:20 13:8'>Exo 13:8</a></em>). Our memorial meeting has this same two fold structure; remembering the deliverance which God wrought for us personally, as well as for the whole community of the redeemed. This is why at the breaking of bread there ought to be an awareness of personal fellowship with God, and also with each other, and with those who have gone before.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A striking difference between the Pentateuch and other contemporary legal codes is that those codes are straight codices of statutes; whereas God's law isn't like that. It is commandment interspersed between historical documents and incidents. We read of some incident in the wilderness journey, then we have some commandments recounted, then another incident, some more commandments, etc. This surely reflects how God intended obedience to His law to not be a legalistic exercise- it was a code for real human life, which should affect the very spirit of human existence in a way which no dry legal code really could. It was to set a rhythm of life, revealing how that law was "for our good always, that God might preserve us" (<em><a href='B:50 6:24'>Deu 6:24</a></em>)- the person who obeyed the law was to live in it (<em><a href='B:420 2:4'>Hab 2:4</a></em> etc.). The motive for obedience to the law was not so that God might give them salvation or status as His people- it was precisely because He had done that, by grace, that they were to respond in obedience (<em><a href='B:20 12:26'>Exo 12:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:8'>Exo 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 13:14'>Exo 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:20'>Deu 6:20</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be for a sign to you on your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of Yahweh may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand Yahweh has brought you out of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The only two sacraments which we have- baptism and the breaking of bread- are related, in that both show in physical symbolism our association with and blessing from the Lord's sacrifice. The breaking of bread is in a sense an ongoing reminder of the same principles which we showed at our baptism. Likewise the Jewish Passover (cp. our breaking of bread) was in order to bring to mind the deliverance achieved at their national baptism. They were even to wear a sign on their hand and between their eyes that reminded them of the exodus (<em><a href='B:20 13:9'>Exo 13:9</a></em>); all their thinking and doing was to be overshadowed by the awareness of the fact that they had been redeemed that day. It seems they never did this, although the idea may be that there to remember their redemption as if it were a seal on their hand and between their eyes. If we do feel that we have fallen so deeply into the rut of semi-spirituality that we can't crawl out, then think back to your baptism, or to the days when you first read Christian literature, bought a Bible, started praying... <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference is specifically to the feast of unleavened bread, not Passover.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be, when Yahweh shall bring you into the land of the Canaanite, as He swore to you and to your fathers, and shall give it you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It could be that the "you" refers to the people of God in a collective sense. But the more comfortable application is to that generation to whom Moses was then speaking. This promise of entering the land was solemnly made, with uplifted hand as it were, to that generation who left Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:30'>Num 14:30</a></em>). But they did not enter the land, as <em><a href='B:40 14:30'>Num 14:30</a></em> makes clear. This was because Israel broke their side of the covenant, and did not in fact want to enter the land; and continued serving the idols of Egypt, which they took with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). But that promise was guaranteed by the fact that "I will bring you into the land... I am Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:20 6:8'>Exo 6:8</a></em>). The very essence of Yahweh, that 'I will' save, as surely as 'I will be who I will be', a saviour God, was fought against by Israel's idolatry and unfaithfulness to the covenant. And because 'Yahweh' involves His character, which includes His judgment of sin and not turning a blind eye to it (<em><a href='B:20 34:4-6'>Exo 34:4-6</a></em>), human intransigence and faithlessness was allowed to as it were even counteract His most essential 'being' a saviour God for His beloved people. But that salvation was recalculated and reinterpreted with reference to another generation, and to the people of God generally rather than to the initially intended audience.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>that you shall set apart to Yahweh all that opens the womb, and every firstborn which you have that comes from an animal. The males shall be Yahweh’s- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :2 that it was God's initial intention that all the firstborn should be sanctified to His service, from whatever tribe. And the sacrificial animals would be provided by the firstborn of every animal. But this plan didn't work, and so He called one tribe to be His sanctified priests, and all Israel were to provide animals for sacrifice. And they also didn't really do their ministry, and so under the new covenant, all are priests. We marvel at how God continually seeks to forge ahead with His plans for relationship with man.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and you shall redeem all the firstborn of man among your sons-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The redemption of unclean devoted animals was to be at the basis of the animals value plus one fifth (<em><a href='B:30 27:27'>Lev 27:27</a></em>). But the firstborn of donkeys were to be redeemed with a lamb, and a lamb would have been of less value than a newborn donkey. The firstborn of the donkey was to be redeemed by a lamb (<em><a href='B:20 13:13'>Exo 13:13</a></em>) as a ritual reminder of the power of the Passover lamb's redemption. The value of its blood was far greater than its commercial value. And this was to point forward to the value of the blood of the Lord Jesus, far more precious than of any gold or silver (<em><a href='B:670 1:18'>1Pe 1:18</a></em>). The donkey was the most common domestic animal, and it was an unclean animal. It was therefore representative of common people, in their unclean state. Firstborn donkeys were to be redeemed because they were to be understood as representative of God's people, redeemed by the Passover lamb.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is this?’ that you shall tell him, ‘By strength of hand Yahweh brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The son was to be taught that 'we' were delivered from Egypt. What had been done in history had been done to all within the body of God's people. David and the writers of the Psalms and restoration prophets clearly grasped this, as they constantly glory in what God had done for them and "us" at the Red Sea. The Biblical approach to history is unique. God's word is seen as a living word, and all His previous acts of salvation are to be felt as experienced by us. In our world, human history is generally felt to be bunk, irrelevant to this generation, of merely passing cultural fascination to the hurrying man of modern society. And in some ways, that may indeed be a legitimate take on secular history. But Biblical history is to be seen quite otherwise by God's people. It is a living word spoken to us, and the salvation acts which are there recorded happened to us. For "all live unto Him"(<em><a href='B:490 20:38'>Luk 20:38</a></em>), those now dead people who experienced Divine salvation are alive in God's mind (although not personally conscious). We therefore live out our lives as it were on a stage, before the great crowd of witnesses of God's people over history (<em><a href='B:650 12:1'>Heb 12:1</a></em>). It requires us to see ourselves as part of a far greater whole, the Israel of God, and not individuals isolated at a point of time. Salvation has both a collective and an individual dimension. Our individual salvation is predicated upon our choice to identify with the collective salvation of God's people which began with God's grace to Adam in Eden. Just as the sin of Adam and Eve is that of everyman, in that in essence we repeat it in our own failings; so the plan of salvation which began there can be accepted by everyman.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and it happened, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that Yahweh killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of animal. Therefore I sacrifice to Yahweh all that opens the womb, being males; but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As the firstborn, Moses should have been slain on Passover night (<em><a href='B:20 13:15'>Exo 13:15</a></em>); but he made the Passover sacrifice for his own redemption, although <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> says that he did it for the sake of Israel's redemption. Likewise the Lord's almost incomprehensible victory over human nature was not motivated by a selfish desire for his redemption; he did it for himself, that it might be for us. And this is what strengthened him. And on a far lower level, our own salvation is surely worked out through the sacrifices we make for the sake of others' spirituality. The fact that the Lord, as Moses, has gone along the same path to salvation really should be a comfort to us; it should lessen the distance which we feel between us and our Lord. Thus a study of typology and of the atonement is not barren; it really will bring us closer to the Lord Jesus if we do it in the right spirit.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall be for a sign on your hand, and for symbols between your eyes: for by strength of hand Yahweh brought us out of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Contemporary ideas about Satan, demons etc. are often alluded to in the Pentateuch, and Israel are given the true understanding. Take the well known command to Israel to wear a phylactery as a reminder of the Passover deliverance from Egypt: "You shall have the record of it as a sign upon your hand, and upon your forehead as a phylactery, because by the strength of his hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:20 13:16'>Exo 13:16</a></em> N.E.B.). Wearing a phylactery wasn't a new concept; the idea "refers to amulets which were worn in order to protect their wearers against demons". So by giving this command, Israel's God was showing His people that instead of being on the <em>defensive</em> against demons, needing good luck charms against them, they should instead replace these by a positive remembrance of how Yahweh had saved His people from all the power of evil which was symbolized by Pharaoh's Egypt. Rejoicing in His salvation and constantly remembering it was intended to totally sideline the various false beliefs about demons which were prevalent at the time.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God didn’t lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fear of God lest Israel would not attain the promised land ("lest perhaps") shows His humility, in being so concerned for the salvation of petty man; and that characteristic likewise will be His, right up to and through and beyond the day of judgment.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was the Angel which led Israel in the pillar of fire and cloud. Despite their limitations, we know that the work of our guardian Angel is so over-ruled that we will never be tested above what we are able to bear. The trials they choose for us are in accordance to the spiritual strength they know we possess- thus the Angel leading Israel through the wilderness "led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines; for God (the Angel leading them) said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but God led the people about through the way of the wilderness" (<em><a href='B:20 13:17-18'>Exo 13:17-18</a></em>). So we see the great fear our guardian Angel has that we will return to Egypt (the flesh), and therefore He gives us trials which will prevent this, although at the time we feel like Israel that the trials are actually enough to make us want to return to the world.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but God led the people around by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Armed" is literally 'in fives', perhaps implying they marched five abreast. Hence LXX "and in the fifth generation the children of Israel went up out of the land of Egypt". If the LXX is correct then we have here confirmation of the argument made on <em><a href='B:20 12:40'>Exo 12:40</a></em> that Israel were in Egypt for 215 years, not 430. If we read "in fives" as 'five abreast' then as discussed on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>, a group of 600,000 men plus women, children and a "mixed multitude" would require a column of around 1000 km. long. See my suggestion on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em> that the numbers were far smaller.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he had made the children of Israel swear, saying, God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones away from here with you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite living a long life in the opulence of Egypt, without apparently falling from power and wealth, the heart of Joseph was not in it at all, but rather in the land of promise, in the things of the Kingdom. An example to us all. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Etham in Egyptian means a ‘closed place, fortress, castle’. Presumably there was a Philistine garrison there, as it was a border town, and remnants of the castle have been unearthed. Again we sense the Egyptians as powerless before this huge column of Divinely liberated slaves. This incident was providentially arranged to strengthen the Israelites in faith when a far greater Egyptian force approached them. See on <em><a href='B:20 14:3'>Exo 14:3</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them on their way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night:-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is very rhythmic and poetic in Hebrew, as if part of a marching song: "And YHWH went before them / by day in a pillar of cloud / to lead them by the way / and by night in a pillar of fire / to give them the light / to go by day and night. / Aside turns not / the pillar of cloud by day / nor the pillar of fire by night / before the people". <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note God's sensitivity to His people in the desert- fire at night to warm them against the desert cold, and cloud in the day time to shield them from the heat of the sun. He is likewise sensitive to our issues on our wilderness journey to His promised land.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, didn’t depart from before the people- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 13:21-22'>Exo 13:21-22</a></em> says that there was a pillar of cloud in the day time and a pillar of fire by night. But at the time of the Exodus, there was a pillar of cloud for the Egyptians and a pillar of fire to give light in the night for the Israelites (<em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a></em>). Could this mean that the meaning of time was collapsed at this time? It was night for the Israelites but daytime for the Egyptians? <em><a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a></em>, amidst many exodus / Red Sea allusions, speaks of how God makes the darkness light before His exiting people. The many Johanine references to the Lord Jesus being a light in the darkness for His followers would then be yet more elaborations of the idea that the Lord Jesus is the antitype of the Angel that led Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:35'>Joh 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 9:21'>Num 9:21</a></em> says that the pillar of cloud was with the Israelites at <em>night</em>, and sometimes it was taken up in the night and they therefore had to move on. Does this mean that there were times when the meaning of time was collapsed during their journey, and the night was made as the day (perhaps <em><a href='B:230 139:12'>Psa 139:12</a></em> alludes to this experience)? When Yahweh came down on Sinai, He was enveloped in a <em>cloud</em> of <em>fire</em>- suggesting that there was no day and night for Him (<em><a href='B:20 24:15-17'>Exo 24:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was Moses who wrote these accounts, and his humility shines through in speaking of himself in the third person. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Speak to the children of Israel, that they turn back and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal Zephon. You shall encamp opposite it by the sea-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Turn", Heb. 'turn back, return', to retrace their steps; see on :3. God told them to go to a location which humanly speaking was a trap- as the Egyptians realized, :3. The "turn" back on themselves was humanly senseless when they needed to put as much distance as they could between them and the Egyptians, and gave the appearance of being lost (AV "entangled"). So God leads us to baptism, leads us to redemption from this world, through bringing us into desperate situations. They were taken to a situation where there was no way out- the sea to the east, high mountains to the south and west, and the Egyptians approaching from the north. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, ‘They are entangled in the land. The wilderness has shut them in’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Entangled" has the sense of "confused / perplexed"; he assumed they had lost their way. They had turned back on themselves, and he had likely been informed of this by his garrison at Etham; see on <em><a href='B:20 13:20'>Exo 13:20</a></em>. "The wilderness" which he supposed had now blocked them off was that between the Nile valley and the Red Sea. To pass west of the Bitter Lakes made no human sense- and so often, God's strategies for victory involve doing that which is absolutely counter instinctive to all secular wisdom. "Shut them in" is the word also translated "surrender". He thought they would have no option but to surrender to him.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will follow after them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The same Hebrew words used of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart occur in a positive context- for God also hardens or strengthens the hearts of the righteous (<em><a href='B:230 27:14'>Psa 27:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:4'>Isa 35:4</a></em>). Indeed, <em><a href='B:290 35:4'>Isa 35:4</a></em> speaks of how the righteous shouldn’t have a weak or (Heb.) ‘fluid’ heart, but rather a hardened one. Clearly enough, God solidifies human attitudes, one way or the other, through the work of His Spirit upon our spirit. This is a sobering thought- for He is prepared to confirm a person in their weak thinking. But on the other hand, even the weakest basic intention towards righteousness is solidified by Him too. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And I will get honour over Pharaoh, and over all his armies; and the Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh. They did so- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The rejected at the last day will not be indifferent. It will be an awful end; finally grasping the real essence of spirituality and so desperately wanting to know God in the sense of having a loving relationship with Him- in the very last moments of their existence. The most Biblically emphasized reason for the Red Sea experience is “that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord” (<em><a href='B:20 14:4'>Exo 14:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:17'>Exo 14:17</a></em>) and therefore honour Him. It was surely only in Pharaoh’s last few moments of life that he came, through his experience of condemnation, to know the essence of Yahweh. As the tidal wave crushed down upon him, as water filled his lungs…he desperately came to know Israel’s God in absolute truth. But it was all too late. We must know Him <em>now…</em> <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It was told the king of Egypt that the people had fled; and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was changed towards the people, and they said, What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Egyptian beast being so furiously determined to destroy Israel at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:5'>Exo 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:9'>Exo 15:9</a></em>) is the basis for the dragon being "wroth with the woman, and went to make war (as Pharaoh 'went') with the remnant of her seed", chasing her into the wilderness and trying to destroy her with water (cp. the Red Sea); but "the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood" (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:12:13-17'>Rev 12:13-17</a></em>), as at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 15:12'>Exo 15:12</a></em>).&nbsp;This passage in Revelation has reference to the latter day persecution of God's people, which is clearly based upon what Pharaoh did.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He prepared his chariot, and took his army with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew Bible usually speaks of leaders having their chariots prepared by others, but Pharaoh personally was eager and committed to this enterprise. "His army" would refer to his own personal bodyguard. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over all of them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may mean that every chariot in Egypt, all her human strength, was gathered against Israel. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pharaoh hardened his own heart (<em><a href='B:20 7:22'>Exo 7:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:15'>Exo 8:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:19'>Exo 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:32'>Exo 8:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:7'>Exo 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:34-35'>Exo 9:34-35</a></em>). And yet God hardened his heart (<em><a href='B:20 9:12'>Exo 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:1'>Exo 10:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:20'>Exo 10:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:27'>Exo 10:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:10'>Exo 11:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a></em>). The references to God hardening Pharaoh's heart generally occur after Pharaoh had first hardened his own heart. The fact Pharaoh hardened his heart was a sin (<em><a href='B:20 9:34'>Exo 9:34</a></em>), and yet God encouraged him in this. God offered Pharaoh a way of escape after each of the plagues; all he had to do was to agree to let Israel go. But the conditions got tougher the longer he resisted God's demand: he finally had to not only let Israel go, but also provide them with sacrifices (<em><a href='B:20 10:25'>Exo 10:25</a></em>). Likewise when Nebuchadnezzar lifted his heart up, God hardened it (<em><a href='B:340 5:20'>Dan 5:20</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the children of Israel went out with a high hand-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :31. "With a high hand" means effectively the lifted up hand of God (<em><a href='B:20 15:12'>Exo 15:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:11'>Isa 26:11</a></em>). Yet the term also refers to God's solemn oath. The fact He had brought them out of Egypt meant that He was taking an oath to bring them to His Kingdom. Whilst baptism (cp. the Red Sea crossing) is no guarantee of salvation of itself, as we ourselves may choose to return to Egypt, it is His oath to us that from His side, He will now save us and bring us to His Kingdom- if we let Him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Egyptians pursued after them: all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, his horsemen, and his army; and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baal Zephon-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note the stress upon "of Pharaoh", "his... his...". He was personally responsible for all this, and the whole narrative is about Pharaoh and Moses locked in conflict. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Pharaoh drew near, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them; and they were very afraid. The children of Israel cried out to Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The people saw the Egyptians marching after them by the dust clouds from their chariots. These dust clouds ought to have been contrasted by them with the cloud of God's presence which was over them. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Israel left Egypt&nbsp; God “led them on safely, so that they feared not” (<em><a href='B:230 78:53'>Psa 78:53</a></em>). But they <em>did</em> fear (<em><a href='B:20 14:10-12'>Exo 14:10-12</a></em>). Surely we must read in some conditions here- God’s care for them was such that they need not have feared, but they failed to discern His care and power and therefore they <em>did</em> fear.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel's deliverance through the Red Sea seems to be attributed to Moses' faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:36'>Act 7:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:38'>Act 7:38</a></em>). Yet in the actual record, Moses seems to have shared Israel's cry of fear, and was rebuked for this by God (<em><a href='B:20 14:15'>Exo 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:10'>Exo 14:10</a></em>). Yet in the midst of that rebuke, we learn from the New Testament, God perceived the faith latent within Moses, beneath that human fear and panic. He likewise sees beneath our Christian hypocrisy to what true spirituality there is in us. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole description of Egypt's judgments in Ezekiel 29 is also full of links with those in store for Israel. <em>They</em> will cry unto Yahweh in their affliction (<em><a href='B:290 19:20'>Isa 19:20</a></em>), just as Israel did when Egypt persecuted them (<em><a href='B:20 2:23'>Exo 2:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:10'>Exo 14:10</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said to Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, have you taken us away to die in the wilderness? Why have you treated us this way, to bring us out of Egypt?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had been weak and discouraged in the same way, accusing God of wanting to do them evil rather than save them (<em><a href='B:20 5:23'>Exo 5:23</a></em>). And now this was what the people concluded in the desert, when they complained Yahweh had brought them into the desert to slay them. Moses would have found patience with them, because he would have realized that this same desperate conclusion, in the heat of desperation, was what he too had been guilty of. It is awareness of our own failures which provides the basis for others in theirs. God is without that aspect; His patience with human sin is therefore the more wonderful than ours.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Isn’t this the word that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, ‘Leave us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians?’ For it were better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is so significant; the people didn't actually want redemption. God had been minded to slay them in Egypt for their idolatry and rejection of serving Him in favour of serving the Egyptians (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). But the pole of His saving grace was stronger than that of His necessary judgment of sin. He saved them against their will. The crossing of the Red Sea was like baptism for us (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). We were led to that point by grace alone. It is so wrong to think that leading was some reward for our own righteous hearts. It was by grace alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to the people, Don’t be afraid. Stand still, and see the salvation of Yahweh, which He will work for you today: for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you shall never see them again- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yet his faith was weak at this time; see on :15. He had faith and unbelief at the same time, just as he left Egypt at age 40 "not fearing the wrath of the king", and yet also he fled from fear of death at the hands of the king. To believe and disbelieve at the same time is a sad feature of human nature (<em><a href='B:480 9:24'>Mar 9:24</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a></em> could appear to be prophecy: “The Egyptians… you shall see them again no more for ever”. But it is understood as a command not to return to Egypt in <em><a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a></em> - and because of Israel turning back to Egypt in their hearts, they would be taken there again (<em><a href='B:50 28:68'>Deu 28:68</a></em>). So we must be prepared to accept that what may appear to be prophecy is in fact commandment, which we have the freewill to obey or disobey.&nbsp; <em><a href='B:330 43:7'>Eze 43:7</a></em> likewise is more command than prediction: “The house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name” (RV). It isn’t saying ‘this is a prophecy that they will not do this’- for they did. Rather is it a plea, a command, that they are not to do this any more.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was by Moses' faith that the Red Sea parted (<em><a href='B:650 11:29'>Heb 11:29</a></em>). His faith was based upon the promises of deliverance from and judgment upon Egypt found in <em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 46:3-4'>Gen 46:3-4</a></em>. Faith comes from the word of God (<em><a href='B:520 10:17'>Rom 10:17</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh will fight for you, and you shall be still- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Still" is "silent". Rahab's house had to be identified by a scarlet cord- like the blood of the Passover lamb sprinkled on the two doorposts and lintel of the Israelites' homes in Egypt. The silence demanded of the people when Jericho was taken was surely to recall <em><a href='B:20 14:14'>Exo 14:14</a></em>, there the people standing before the Red Sea were assured: “The Lord will fight for you while you keep silent". Compare the command to keep silent whilst Yahweh fought, with the common practice of yelling war cries as an ancient army approached their enemy. All human convention, wisdom and strength, was placed in purposeful opposition to what seemed quite counter-instinctive- to be utterly silent whilst God did the fighting.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Why do you cry to me? Speak to the children of Israel, that they go forward- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"By faith he kept the Passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them (Israel). By faith they (Israel) passed through the Red Sea" (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Yet at this time Israel were weak in faith, they passed through the Red Sea cuddling the idols of Egypt (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>), from the day God knew them they were rebellious against Him; so runs the refrain of the prophets. It seems that due to Moses' faith Israel were saved by the Passover lamb, through his faith they passed through the Red Sea; his faith was so great, his desire for their salvation so strong, that God counted it to the rest of Israel. Thus "he (Moses, in the context) brought them (Israel) out" of Egypt (<em><a href='B:510 7:36'>Act 7:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:38'>Act 7:38</a></em>). This points forward to Christ's redemption of us, and also indicates how quickly Moses' faith rallied. And yet just prior to crossing the Sea, God rebuked Moses: "Why do you cry unto me?" - even though Moses calmly exhorted the people to have faith (<em><a href='B:20 14:15'>Exo 14:15</a></em> cp. 13). Yet by faith he brought them through the Red Sea. Therefore as with his first exit from Egypt (he feared the wrath of the King, and then he didn't), his faith wavered, but came down on the right side.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>So at the shores of the Red Sea, it seems Moses' faith wavered, and he prayed something at best inappropriate. All we read is God's response: "Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward" (<em><a href='B:20 14:15'>Exo 14:15</a></em>). It seems that Moses' 'cry' isn't recorded- by grace. Likewise it seems Zacharias probably said far more than "Whereby shall I know this?" when Gabriel told him he would soon have a son. It would seem the conversation went on for so long that the people outside wondered why he was staying so long. Presumably he remonstrated with the Angel with other, graciously unrecorded words, and thereby earnt the punishment of dumbness (<em><a href='B:490 1:18-22'>Luk 1:18-22</a></em>). We too are to have the love that seeks to cover sin and not unduly record it by keeping a record of wrongs.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go into the midst of the sea on dry ground- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Babylonian Account of Creation claims (Tablet 4, line 137) that Marduk cleft Tiamat, the ocean goddess, with his sword. The Biblical idea of Yahweh cleaving the waters clearly picks up this idea (<em><a href='B:420 3:9'>Hab 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 74:15'>Psa 74:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:13'>Psa 78:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:15'>Psa 78:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:16'>Exo 14:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:21'>Exo 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:70 15:19'>Jdg 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 35:6'>Isa 35:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:12'>Isa 63:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:160 9:11'>Neh 9:11</a></em>). But these passages largely refer to the miracle God did at the Red Sea, bringing about the creation of His people out of the cleft waters of the Sea. Again, pagan creation is reinterpreted with reference to a historical, actual event in the experience of God’s people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall go in after them: and I will get Myself honour over Pharaoh, and over all his armies, over his chariots, and over his horsemen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Hebrew tends to reason through placing 'blocks' of ideas are put in opposition to each other, or 'dialectic', in order to come to conclusions. That's why we can read of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh hardening his own heart (<em><a href='B:20 7:3'>Exo 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:15'>Exo 8:15</a></em>). To Greek, step-logic thinkers, that's a worrying contradiction- only because they don't pick up the way that Hebrew reasoning involves these kinds of statements being put in opposition to each other, so that through the dialectic process we come to understand what is meant.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God had hardened their hearts, meaning He had removed sensitivity from their consciences. Pharaoh's heart was turned by God, because that was the direction he himself wanted (<em><a href='B:230 105:25'>Psa 105:25</a></em>). Pharaoh's response gets increasingly better, confessing sinfulness, asking for prayer, etc. And yet we have to read this as his conscience being increasingly touched, and yet he refused to act upon it. The movement of conscience within him was overcome by the movement of hardness; and as hardness was his dominant desire, it was that which Yahweh confirmed. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Paul insists that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (<em><a href='B:520 9:14-18'>Rom 9:14-18</a></em>), he is not only repeating the Biblical record (<em><a href='B:20 9:12'>Exo 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 9:16'>Exo 9:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:19'>Exo 33:19</a></em>), but he is alluding to the way that the Jewish <em>Book of Jubilees</em> claimed that Mastema (the supposed personal Satan) and not God hardened Pharaoh's heart. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh, when I have gotten Myself honour over Pharaoh, over his chariots, and over his horsemen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When they are appointed their portion with the hypocrites and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, <em>then </em>shall the Kingdom be likened unto the five wise and five foolish virgins. <em>Then</em> the rejected will understand the principles of that parable, crystal clearly. Members of the ecclesia of Israel will say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"- but be rejected (how else to understand <em><a href='B:470 23:39'>Mat 23:39</a></em>?). Likewise the Egyptians, fleeing in the mud from Yahweh as they vainly hoped against hope that the returning waters wouldn't somehow reach them...they came to know Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:18'>Exo 14:18</a></em>). It could well be that this knowing of Yahweh involves a desperate recounting of their sins, seeing that one of the purposes of condemnation is to make men aware of their sinfulness and the depth of God's grace. <em><a href='B:40 32:23'>Num 32:23</a></em> prophesied of Israel in their time of condemnation: "You will be sensible of your sin when evil overtakes you" (LXX). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them, and stood behind them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Mount burning with fire when Moses ascended it was due to the pillar of fire standing there, appearing to reach to the "midst of Heaven", showing Heaven and earth were connected through this manifestation (<em><a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a></em>). The Angel led them through the wilderness, and elsewhere we read that the pillar of fire led them; the conclusion is therefore that the pillar of fire was where the Angel dwelt. Thus the Angel literally "went before" them&nbsp; as God promised it would, in the form of the pillar. Angels are elsewhere associated with pillars of fire, e. g. the one which came to Manoah, and not least in that God came down in a pillar of fire to speak to Moses. <em><a href='B:20 14:19'>Exo 14:19</a></em> conclusively shows the pillar of fire/cloud and the Angel to be identical: "the Angel of God which went before the camp of Israel removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud (the Shekinah glory) went from before their face, and stood behind them".<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Recognizing the extent of Angelic work in our lives should in itself be a humbling experience, not least because if we recognize we are led by the Angels through life, we cannot plan ahead in our own strength. When Israel crossed the Red Sea, the pillar of cloud that led them went behind them so that the Egyptians could not see ahead of them to where the Israelites were, although the actual distance was not great at all (<em><a href='B:20 14:19-20'>Exo 14:19-20</a></em>). This means that the pillar of cloud, which represented the Angel leading them, was too thick&nbsp;&nbsp; to see through, and so it follows that if the Egyptians could not see through it when it went in front of them, neither could the Israelites for most of the wilderness journey. And if our lives are truly led by the Angel, we should not expect to see the way ahead stretching in front of us, but just rest assured that we are actually being led.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel; and there was the cloud and the darkness, yet gave it light by night: and the one didn’t come near the other all the night-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angel was light to Israel and darkness to the Egyptians. The Angelic appearance on Sinai featured both bright fire and darkness (<em><a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). Hence Israel had light but Egypt had darkness in the plague of darkness- because the Angels stood with each Israelite family. What's light to us is darkness to this world. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and Yahweh caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Red Sea lay broadly North-South in orientation. The people crossed from West to East. This meant they would've been walking across the Red Sea against a powerful wind. Participating in God's great salvation involves walking against the wind. But it's this which saves us and opens the way to redemption. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The driving back of the Red Sea, and its return, is explained in Exodus by a "wind". But in <em><a href='B:230 77:17-18'>Psa 77:17-18</a></em> we find that the wind was in fact a whirlwind, associated with an earthquake and lightnings- all language of a theophany. The historical record doesn't much mention the thunder and theophany which was experienced, according to the later Biblical descriptions of what happened. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of waters being divided in "the midst" (<em><a href='B:20 14:22'>Exo 14:22</a></em>) recalls the language of creation- the waters were divided "in the midst" (s.w.) (<em><a href='B:10 1:6'>Gen 1:6</a></em>). Remember that Moses (albeit inspired by God) wrote both Genesis and Exodus. He may be suggesting that his faith in creation lead to his faith that the waters would part. For God had mightily parted waters "in the midst" before. And so our faith in the Genesis creation leads us to faith in God's creative salvation of us in life's crises. Thus the Psalms so often allude to creation as an inspiration for faith. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The East wind which blew the locusts in and then to blow them away again, until "not a single locust was left" (<em><a href='B:20 10:19'>Exo 10:19</a></em>) is just what happened to the Egyptians- the East wind blew the waters to and fro, and left not a single Egyptian soldier alive (<em><a href='B:20 14:21'>Exo 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a></em>). The locust plague was an appeal for their repentance. And the plagues began by affecting everyone, but then focus in on the Egyptians and then zoom closer in upon the personal possessions of Pharaoh. In Pharaoh's case, it would be true to say that God's hardening activities gather momentum, like a swimmer sucked closer and closer towards the waterfall. There has to come a moment when the pull is now too strong, and the plunge is inevitable. It is that moment which perhaps we need to fear more than anything else in human experience<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand, and on their left- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are a number of hints in the record at a new creation. Whilst this has primary reference to the creation of Israel as a nation through the exodus experience, it is fitting that it points forward to the fuller 'new creation' that will be brought about by baptism. <em><a href='B:20 14:20-22'>Exo 14:20-22</a></em> speak of the Red Sea in terms of "darkness... (giving) light... sea... dry land... the waters were divided", all reminiscent of <em><a href='B:10 1:2-3'>Gen 1:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:10'>Gen 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:7'>Gen 1:7</a></em>, respectively. "This month shall be unto you the beginning (Heb. 'rosh') of months: it shall be the first month of the year" (<em><a href='B:20 12:2'>Exo 12:2</a></em>) indicates how Passover was to be a new beginning. It is possible to see in the ten plagues brought about by God's word to Moses an echo of the ten times it is recorded that "God said" in Genesis 1. <em><a href='B:230 105:28-36'>Psa 105:28-36</a></em> describes the plagues on Egypt as a reversal of creation - starting with darkness (cp. "let there be light") and ending with the slaying of the firstborn to match the creation of man last of all.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The wall of water on their right hand and left when they crossed the Red Sea is twice emphasized (<em><a href='B:20 14:22'>Exo 14:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:29'>Exo 14:29</a></em>). It is alluded to later, when they are urged to not depart from God's way, not to the right hand nor left (<em><a href='B:50 5:32'>Deu 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:11'>Deu 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 17:20'>Deu 17:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a></em>). We passed through the Red Sea when we were baptized (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). We were set upon a path which is walled up to keep us within it. And we are to remain in that path upon which we were set. To turn aside from it would be as foolish as Israel turning away from their path and trying to walk into the walls of water.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea: all of Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's emphasized that the Egyptians perished in the midst of the sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>). It happened in the morning, when Israel were all safely onshore. The Red Sea at the place of crossing suggested by the geographical references in <em><a href='B:20 14:2'>Exo 14:2</a></em> is only about 1 kilometer wide at most. So if the Egyptians were in the middle of the sea when the last of the Israelites had arrived onshore, the distance separating them would've been only 500 meters at most. They were really close and likely could've heard each other. 14:13 says the Israelites saw the Egyptians- they were that close. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened in the morning watch, that Yahweh looked out on the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire and of cloud, and confused the Egyptian army-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>Morning watch- 02:00 to 06:00 a.m. For the two million Israelites plus their animals to all cross so quickly, they must've been moving in a very wide column, which means that the path cut through the waters was very broad. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Especially do we find the essence of the Red Sea deliverance repeated in life after life, situation after situation, in Israel's history. This happens to the extent that some of the Psalms can speak as if we were there present; and Paul stresses how that passage through water remains a type of the baptism of every believer to this day (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>). Take for example how just as Yahweh confounded Israel's enemies at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a></em>), so He did in Deborah's victory over Sisera (<em><a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a></em>); and "not one was left" (<em><a href='B:70 4:16'>Jdg 4:16</a></em>), just as happened with the Egyptians (<em><a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 13:21'>Exo 13:21</a></em> says that there was a pillar of cloud in the day time and a pillar of fire by night. But at the time of the Exodus, there was a pillar of cloud for the Egyptians and a pillar of fire to give light in the night for the Israelites (<em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a></em>). Could this mean that the meaning of time was collapsed at this time? It was night for the Israelites but daytime for the Egyptians? <em><a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a></em>, amidst many exodus / Red Sea allusions, speaks of how God makes the darkness light before His exiting people. The many Johanine references to the Lord Jesus being a light in the darkness for His followers would then be yet more elaborations of the idea that the Lord Jesus is the antitype of the Angel that led Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:500 8:12'>Joh 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:35'>Joh 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:46'>Joh 12:46</a></em>). <em><a href='B:40 9:21'>Num 9:21</a></em> says that the pillar of cloud was with the Israelites at <em>night</em>, and sometimes it was taken up in the night and they therefore had to move on. Does this mean that there were times when the meaning of time was collapsed during their journey, and the night was made as the day (perhaps <em><a href='B:230 139:12'>Psa 139:12</a></em> alludes to this experience)? When Yahweh came down on Sinai, He was enveloped in a <em>cloud</em> of <em>fire</em>- suggesting that there was no day and night for Him (<em><a href='B:20 24:15-17'>Exo 24:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He took off their chariot wheels, and they drove them heavily; so that the Egyptians said, Let’s flee from the face of Israel, for Yahweh fights for them against the Egyptians!-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>He jammed the wheels- as a result of the rain making the ground mud beneath them (<em><a href='B:230 77:17-19'>Psa 77:17-19</a></em>). Likewise Sisera "lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet" (<em><a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a></em>), due to the mud produced by the hail (<em><a href='B:230 83:9'>Psa 83:9</a></em>). "There was not a man left" (<em><a href='B:70 4:16'>Jdg 4:16</a></em>) of those enemies; matched by the comment concerning the Egyptians, that "there remained not so much as one of them" (<em><a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a></em>). Biblical history continually interconnects, demonstrating that the same Divine hand has worked throughout history, and likewise works in our lives according to the same style. See on <em><a href='B:20 1:7'>Exo 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:21'>Exo 15:21</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the waters may come again on the Egyptians, on their chariots, and on their horsemen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was to stretch forth his hand to cause the waters of the Red Sea to part and return, not his rod; because he was manifesting the hand of Yahweh which was to deliver Israel (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 7:5'>Exo 7:5</a></em>). The repeated references to the stretched our arm or hand of Yahweh to save His people invite us to recall this incident, and to perceive that Yahweh's hand had been manifest through the hand of Moses (<em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:15'>Deu 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:2'>Deu 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:8'>Deu 26:8</a></em>). That stretched out, saving arm and hand of Yahweh was and is stretched out still, to save His people (<em><a href='B:110 8:42'>1Ki 8:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:15'>Dan 9:15</a></em> "as at this day") and bring about a new creation in human lives (<em><a href='B:290 45:12'>Isa 45:12</a></em>). For the deliverance through the Red Sea is intended to be experienced by all God's people, and is now seen through His saving grace at baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). What happened there was but the beginning of the work of God's outstretched arm (<em><a href='B:50 3:24'>Deu 3:24</a></em>). Yet the stretched out arm / hand of God is also a figure for His judgment (<em><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 9:12'>Isa 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 10:4'>Isa 10:4</a></em>). His hand is at work in our lives- either to our condemnation or our salvation. And it is for us therefore to humble ourselves beneath that mighty hand (<em><a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Aaron had earlier stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 8:6'>Exo 8:6</a></em> s.w.) to produce the plague of frogs- and the Egyptians ought to have perceived that all he needed to do was stretch out his hand, and the waters would return and drown them. But their hearts were hardened against such spiritual perception.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it. Yahweh overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Overthrew" translated a word elsewhere always used for being shaken; later references to what happened suggest there was an earthquake, and they may well have been slain by this, although not all were swallowed- as their bodies washed up on the shore in the morning. The fleeing of the Egyptians from Israel in the midst of the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:25'>Exo 14:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>) was a case of fleeing when none pursued them. This was the judgment upon Israel (<em><a href='B:30 26:17'>Lev 26:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:36'>Lev 26:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:25'>Deu 28:25</a></em>), which was to arise because in their hearts they had returned to Egypt (the world) and were therefore to be judged as Egypt, "condemned with the world" they had loved (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fleeing of the Egyptians was to be repeated in all Israel's conflicts with their enemies; every time, the essence of the Red Sea deliverance (which was by grace alone, as Israel then were so weak spiritually) was to be repeated throughout the history of God's people (<em><a href='B:40 10:35'>Num 10:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 28:7'>Deu 28:7</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The waters returned, and covered the chariots and the horsemen, even all Pharaoh’s army that went in after them into the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'covering' of Egypt with frogs in <em><a href='B:20 8:6'>Exo 8:6</a></em> and locusts in <em><a href='B:20 10:5'>Exo 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:15'>Exo 10:15</a></em> looked ahead to the 'covering' of the Egyptians at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:5'>Exo 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:10'>Exo 15:10</a></em>). It was an appeal for repentance, in the hope that the final smiting would not be necessary. It was God's intention and hope to save the Egyptians, but they would not.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There remained not so much as one of them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"There remained not one" beetle (<em><a href='B:20 8:31'>Exo 8:31</a></em>), locust (<em><a href='B:20 10:19'>Exo 10:19</a></em>) nor Egyptian who pursued the Israelites (<em><a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a></em>). The same phrase is used. Again we see how both Egyptians and Israelites were intended to learn from the plagues, and how this came to full term when "not one" of their enemies was left- thanks to the prayer of Moses.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We find the essence of the Red Sea deliverance repeated in life after life, situation after situation, in Israel's history. This happens to the extent that some of the Psalms can speak as if we were there present; and Paul stresses how that passage through water remains a type of the baptism of every believer to this day (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>). Take for example how just as Yahweh confounded Israel's enemies at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:24-25'>Exo 14:24-25</a></em>), so He did in Deborah's victory over Sisera (<em><a href='B:70 4:15'>Jdg 4:15</a></em>); and "not one was left" (<em><a href='B:70 4:16'>Jdg 4:16</a></em>), just as happened with the Egyptians (<em><a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But the children of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand, and on their left-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"A wall" suggests a defence, twice emphasized (:22,29); although they would have been tempted to not see them as a wall of defence at the time, but rather glanced at them in terror, fearing they might come crashing down upon them. Only in hindsight did they perceive, as we do, that what had seemed so terrifying at the time was actually God's wall of defence.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Thus Yahweh saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :23, the Egyptians perished in the midst of the Red Sea, only about 500 meters from the shore. Their bodies would have washed up on the shores. These small touches of detail are what to me add absolute credibility to the narrative. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Israel saw the great work which Yahweh did to the Egyptians, and the people feared Yahweh; and they believed in Yahweh, and in his servant Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Right at their birth by the Red Sea, the Almighty records that "the people feared Yahweh, and believed Yahweh, and His servant Moses" (<em><a href='B:20 14:23'>Exo 14:23</a></em>). No mention is made of the Egyptian idols they were still cuddling (we don't directly learn about them until Ezekiel 20). Nor do we learn that this "belief" of theirs lasted a mere three days; nor of the fact that they rejected Moses, and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. "There was no strange god" with Israel on their journey (<em><a href='B:50 32:12'>Deu 32:12</a></em>); but there were (<em><a href='B:370 5:26'>Amo 5:26</a></em>). The reconciliation is that God counted as Israel as devoted solely to Him. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are many references in the Upper Room discourse to Moses- without doubt, Moses was very much in the Lord’s mind as He faced His end. Consider at your leisure how <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em> ("you believe in God, believe also in Me" = <em><a href='B:20 14:31'>Exo 14:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:11'>Joh 14:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 14:8'>Exo 14:8</a></em>). When the Lord speaks in the Upper Room of manifesting the Father and Himself unto the disciples (<em><a href='B:500 14:21-22'>Joh 14:21-22</a></em>), he is alluding to the way that Moses asked God to “manifest thyself unto me” (<em><a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a></em> LXX). The Lord’s allusion makes Himself out to be God’s representatives, and all those who believe in Him to be as Moses, receiving the vision of God’s glory. Note that it was that very experience above all others which marks off Moses in Rabbinic writings as supreme and beyond all human equal. And yet the Lord is teaching that that very experience of Moses is to be shared to an even higher degree by all His followers. It would’ve taken real faith and spiritual ambition for those immature men who listened to the Lord that evening to really believe it… And the same difficult call comes to us too.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to Yahweh, and said, I will sing to Yahweh, for He has triumphed gloriously. The horse and his rider He has thrown into the sea-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Psalms so often encourage Israelites to feel as if they personally had been through the Red Sea experience. Generation would tell to generation the Passover story, and would also sing of God’s greatness as Israel did in Exodus 15 (<em><a href='B:230 145:5-7'>Psa 145:5-7</a></em>). Hence: “He turned the sea into dry land… there let us (AV: did we) rejoice in him” (<em><a href='B:230 66:6'>Psa 66:6</a></em> RVmg.). We too are enabled by Scripture to feel as if we were there, and to rejoice in what God did for us there. This of course depends upon our sense of solidarity with God’s people over time, as well as over space. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Therefore the saints will sing "The Song of Moses", which Exodus 15 records was sung after the triumph at the Red Sea. This indicates that Israel in Egypt prior to that represents the saints, just before the Lord's coming. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:15:2-4'>Rev 15:2-4</a></em> is all in the context of the Exodus: "I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire (cp. the calm Red Sea after it had returned over the Egyptians): and them that had gotten the victory (God was victorious at the Red Sea, <em><a href='B:20 15:1'>Exo 15:1</a></em>) over the beast (Egypt is the prototype beast, <em><a href='B:290 51:9'>Isa 51:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 29:3'>Eze 29:3</a></em>)... having the harps of God (cp. Miriam's timbrels)... they sing the song of Moses... Who shall not fear Thee (cp. <em><a href='B:20 15:14-16'>Exo 15:14-16</a></em>)... all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest", referring to how the nations of Canaan were subdued as a result of the Red Sea victory (see <em><a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a></em>). There must therefore be a latter day equivalent of the Red Sea deliverance of God's people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yah is my strength and song. He has become my salvation- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses perceived that the essence of Yahweh and His Name was salvation. To save weak sinners like Israel were at the time is what He is all about. He is a God of salvation, not condemnation; and this should encourage us in our weakness. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is my God, and I will praise Him; my father’s God, and I will exalt Him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses was only with his parents in babyhood and maybe very early childhood. They inculcated in him the faith of Yahweh at that early age. They likely died whilst he was still in the court of Pharaoh and looked like an ungrateful child who had gone the way of the world and forgotten his God and his people and their efforts to raise him in the faith. Moses here and in <em><a href='B:20 18:4'>Exo 18:4</a></em> pays tribute to them. What a surprise awaits them in the Kingdom!<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh is a man of war. Yahweh is His name- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses hereby resigns all possible idea that he himself was a mighty warrior who had saved Israel out of Egypt. He had not fought, and the Egyptians had fled when none pursued them. Yahweh alone was the warrior of Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He has cast Pharaoh’s chariots and his army into the sea. His chosen captains are sunk in the Red Sea-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Egyptians themselves chased after the Israelites into the sea, but God was confirming them in their decision- He was casting them into that water. But if they'd been interviewed as they charged in, they'd have said that they were of their 100% freewill chasing after the Israelites. But God works through and confirms people in their freewill decisions. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The deeps cover them. They went down into the depths like a stone- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The 'covering' of Egypt with frogs in <em><a href='B:20 8:6'>Exo 8:6</a></em> and locusts in <em><a href='B:20 10:5'>Exo 10:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 10:15'>Exo 10:15</a></em> looked ahead to the 'covering' of the Egyptians at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:28'>Exo 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:5'>Exo 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:10'>Exo 15:10</a></em>). It was an appeal for repentance, in the hope that the final smiting would not be necessary. It was God's intention and hope to save the Egyptians, but they would not. They may well have been swallowed by some kind of earthquake (see on <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>) and then their bodies floated to the surface, to be washed up on the shore as a witness to Israel of the destruction of their enemies. The destruction of Babylon is described as a stone being cast into the depths, and this latter day triumph is to be based upon the historical destruction of the Egyptians. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Your right hand, Yahweh, is glorious in power. Your right hand, Yahweh, dashes the enemy in pieces- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The present tenses inculcate the grand theme- that the victory at the Red Sea was to experienced as ongoing throughout the history of God's people. They were to be continually saved, and their enemies likewise defeated. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the greatness of Your excellency, You overthrow those who rise up against You. You send forth Your wrath. It consumes them as stubble- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :6, the present tenses suggest that the victory at the Red Sea was to be forever ongoing in the experience of God's people. What happened in the past (note the past tenses of :8) was to become ongoing experience. And so we like David other later writers can feel that God comes through for us in our lives, just as He did at the Red Sea; and He shall do so for us ultimately. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>With the blast of Your nostrils, the waters were piled up. The floods stood upright as a heap. The deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"A blast" (Heb. <em>ruach</em>, a spirit / Angel?) being sent upon Sennacherib uses the same term used here about Pharaoh's destruction, and it is also used of that of Babylon (<em><a href='B:300 51:1'>Jer 51:1</a></em>). As noted on :21, these similarities show the same Divine hand working throughout the centuries of human history.&nbsp;"Congealed" can mean frozen, although the idea is likely that the water appeared like that, rather than being literally frozen.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The enemy said, ‘I will pursue. I will overtake. I will divide the spoil. My desire shall be satisfied on them. I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But they were cast into the sea by God (<em><a href='B:20 15:21'>Exo 15:21</a></em>). We see here how God confirms people in the desires of their heart, for both good and bad. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Egyptian beast being so furiously determined to destroy Israel at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 14:5'>Exo 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:9'>Exo 15:9</a></em>) is the basis for the dragon being "wroth with the woman, and went to make war (as Pharaoh 'went') with the remnant of her seed", chasing her into the wilderness and trying to destroy her with water (cp. the Red Sea); but "the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood" (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:12:13-17'>Rev 12:13-17</a></em>), as at the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 15:12'>Exo 15:12</a></em>).&nbsp;This passage in Revelation has reference to the latter day persecution of God's people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You blew with Your wind-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The reference may be to God's wind / spirit in an Angel.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The sea covered them. They sank like lead in the mighty waters-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Revelation 18 describes the latter day Babylon as being destroyed by being cast into the sea as a stone.&nbsp;This is definitely based on the description of Egypt as suffering the same fate in the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:20 15:5'>Exo 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:10'>Exo 15:10</a></em>), thus associating the historical 'Egypt' with last days Babylon. All this would suggest that the Lord could return at Passover, or the final tribulation begin then. “The day of the Lord” is the same phrase used about a Jewish feast. “Let the feasts come round: then will I distress Ariel” (<em><a href='B:290 29:1-2'>Isa 29:1-2</a></em> RV). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Who is like You, Yahweh, among the gods? Who is like You, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The earlier books of the Bible declare Yahweh as greater than all other gods; later on, especially in Isaiah, it's more specifically stated that the other gods don't exist. Rather like the earlier parts of the Gospel records speaking of God's supremacy over demons / pagan gods; but then such references fade as it becomes apparent that Yahweh is <em>so </em>great that the other gods don't exist at all. God is very gentle in how He progressively teaches and reveals Himself to His people. We at times need to do the same in teaching misbelievers and unbelievers. The Lord's attitude to the question of demons is an example.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As in <em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:11'>Exo 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:4'>Num 33:4</a></em>. the “gods” are spoken of for a moment as real and existing, in order to show Yahweh’s total superiority over them to the point that they didn’t exist. Note how it was the Egyptian people who were judged (<em><a href='B:10 15:14'>Gen 15:14</a></em>); their idols (“gods”) are used by metonymy to stand for those who believed in them. Likewise “demons” is sometimes put by metonymy for those who believed in them (e.g. <em><a href='B:480 1:32'>Mar 1:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 1:34'>Mar 1:34</a></em>). The judgment upon Egypt’s gods is brought out by an otherwise obscure reference in <em><a href='B:20 7:19'>Exo 7:19</a></em> to how “there shall be blood in all the land of Egypt on wood and in stone”. “Wood and stone” is a term usually used in the Bible for idols; and “the Egyptian priests used <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You stretched out Your right hand. The earth swallowed them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As later happened to apostate Israel in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:40 16:32'>Num 16:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:10'>Num 26:10</a></em>). The punishment / judgment upon the world (Egypt) will come upon God's renegade people; they shall be "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). The swallowing up of the Egyptian rods by that of Aaron's (<em><a href='B:20 7:12'>Exo 7:12</a></em>) had been to warn the perceptive Egyptians that Yahweh could easily swallow them up if He wished; and He did so at the Red Sea. Because they failed to learn from His prior warning. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They may well have been swallowed by some kind of earthquake (see on <em><a href='B:20 14:27'>Exo 14:27</a></em>) and then their bodies floated to the surface, to be washed up on the shore as a witness to Israel of the destruction of their enemies.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You, in Your grace, have led the people that You have redeemed. You have guided them in Your strength to Your holy habitation-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Exodus deliverance was seen as part and parcel of being given inheritance in the promised land; just as baptism is for us. We can upset the process, as faithless Israel did in the wilderness. Whilst baptism of itself will not save us (cp. crossing the Red Sea, <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), it is a guarantee that God from His side will guide us to His Kingdom.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' song of triumph after the Red Sea deliverance shows a fine spirituality. However, we note here his possible misunderstanding in <em><a href='B:20 15:13'>Exo 15:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> - that Sinai was to be “the place” where God would dwell with Israel.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The peoples have heard. They tremble. Pangs have taken hold on the inhabitants of Philistia- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Rahab was aware of what Israel had done to their enemies on their way to Jericho- and she appears to allude to Moses' commands to destroy utterly and not make covenant with the peoples of the land (<em><a href='B:50 2:32-37'>Deu 2:32-37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:1-5'>Deu 7:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 20:16-18'>Deu 20:16-18</a></em>). When she says that she was aware that God had "given you the land" (<em><a href='B:60 2:9'>Jos 2:9</a></em>), she uses the same two Hebrew words used repeatedly in Deuteronomy regarding God's promise to give Israel the land of the Canaanites. "Your terror is fallen upon us" is likewise an allusion to <em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a></em> (the same Hebrew word for "terror" is used by Rahab). Rahab speaks of how her people are "fainting" in fear- quoting <em><a href='B:20 15:15'>Exo 15:15</a></em> about how the inhabitants of Canaan would "faint" (AV "melt away") because of Israel. Knowing all this, she has the ambition to request the impossible- that she would be the exception, that with her a covenant would be made. When she says that "we have heard" about the Exodus (<em><a href='B:60 2:10'>Jos 2:10</a></em>), she may be referring to the prophecy of <em><a href='B:20 15:14'>Exo 15:14</a></em>: "The people shall hear and be afraid". In this case, her emphasis would have been upon the word "have"- 'yes, we have heard indeed, as Moses sung, and yes, we are afraid'. Seeking God's face is actually to strive for the unachievable in this life; but it's what we are to do. Spiritual ambition of the type Rahab had lifts us far above the mire of mediocrity which there is in all human life under the sun.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We must put this together with the way Edom "refused to give Israel passage through his border" (<em><a href='B:40 20:18-21'>Num 20:18-21</a></em>). Edom's refusal was because they were "dismayed" and terrified, not because they had some nonchalant confidence against Israel. Rather like the walls of Jericho appearing so strong- yet they were built from chronic fear of the Israelites.&nbsp; This is an example of where we must place scripture together to get an accurate picture.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Trembling takes hold of the mighty men of Moab- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is indicated by the way Balak king of Moab tried to hire Balaam to curse Israel.&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the inhabitants of Canaan are melted away-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel doubtless sung this song with great gusto. And truly it happened, that the Canaanite nations melted in fear of Israel (<em><a href='B:60 2:11'>Jos 2:11</a></em>). But Israel's hearts "melted" for fear of those melting Canaanites (<em><a href='B:60 14:8'>Jos 14:8</a></em>). Do <em>we</em> believe the words we so fervently sing...? For Israel didn't. It remained as words on a hymn sheet, and never took lodgment in their hearts.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Terror and dread falls on them. By the greatness of your arm they are as still as a stone- until Your people pass over, Yahweh, until the people pass over whom You have purchased-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As the Egyptians sunk as a stone (<em><a href='B:20 15:5'>Exo 15:5</a></em>), so would the Canaanite nations. If God could do this to the Egyptians, He would remove all other obstacles to entering the Kingdom. The 'passing over' of the Red Sea was to be seen as the entire passing over into the Kingdom. Their entire journey was to be done in the spirit of the crossing of the Red Sea. The fact we have been brought out of the world, baptized through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-3'>1Co 10:1-3</a></em>), is comfort and encouragement that all the other obstacles on the Kingdom road will also be dealt with. We can never under-estimate the significance of our own baptisms. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh "purchased" His people from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a></em>) in the sense that He "redeemed" them (<em><a href='B:20 6:6'>Exo 6:6</a></em>), alluding to the idea of buying a close relative out of slavery to a Gentile. God's people were in slavery to Egypt and wished to remain like that (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>); and had accepted their idols, rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). Yet God bought them out of that slavery, He redeemed them only thanks to His love and pity (s.w. <em><a href='B:290 63:9'>Isa 63:9</a></em>); so earnest was He to have them as His own. We cannot push the metaphors too far, but the price paid was perhaps represented by the blood of the Passover lamb. For this finally was the price He was willing to pay to redeem us, similarly weak as they were. For we are redeemed (s.w.) by Him from the power of sin and death (<em><a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall bring them in- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The prophets had the spirit of Moses, who wished to see Israel in the land glorifying God, and was willing for his name to be blotted out of the book of eternal remembrance for that to happen. In that spirit, Moses even earlier could rejoice in song that “Thou wilt bring <em>them </em>in and plant<em> them</em>” (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>) rather than “You will bring <em>us</em> in…”. The prophetic desire was to see God glorified rather than their own success. This is the spirit of the prophets. This is what led them to see the tragedy of insincerity, of indifference, of the don’t care attitude.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And plant them-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> explains how God created "every plant of the field before it was in the earth /<em> eretz </em>/ land (promised to Abraham)". Quite simply, the plants Israel knew had been made by God and somehow transplanted or moved into the land, just as one does when developing a garden. It was Moses' understanding that on entering the land, God would be planting Israel there (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>), just as God had planted in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em> s.w.). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the mountain of your inheritance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The parable of the pounds describes the reward of the faithful in terms of being given ten or five cities (<em><a href='B:490 19:17'>Luk 19:17</a></em>). This idea of dividing up groups of cities was surely meant to send the mind back to the way Israel in their wilderness years were each promised their own individual cities and villages, which they later inherited. The idea of inheriting "ten cities" occurs in <em><a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:5'>Jos 21:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 21:26'>Jos 21:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 6:61'>1Ch 6:61</a></em> (all of which are in the context of the priests receiving their cities), and " five cities" in <em><a href='B:130 4:32'>1Ch 4:32</a></em>. As each Israelite was promised some personal inheritance in the land, rather than some blanket reward which the while nation received, so we too have a personal reward prepared. The language of inheritance (e.g. <em><a href='B:670 1:4'>1Pe 1:4</a></em>) and preparation of reward (<em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a></em>) in the NT is alluding to this OT background of the land being prepared by the Angels for Israel to inherit (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> (Heb.); <em><a href='B:20 23:20'>Exo 23:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 68:9-10'>Psa 68:9-10</a></em> Heb.) . We must be careful not to think that our promised inheritance is <em>only</em> eternal life; it is something being personally prepared for each of us. The language of preparation seems inappropriate if our reward is only eternal life. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The place, Yahweh, which You have made for yourself to dwell in; the sanctuary, Lord, which Your hands have established-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The whole land of Israel was intended to be the sanctuary ultimately, and not just the temple mount (<em><a href='B:230 78:54'>Psa 78:54</a></em>). But this was one of the many potentials made possible for Israel which never materialized, because of their failures.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh shall reign forever and ever- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sense of this statement is explained by the next verse explaining that this is because Yahweh had destroyed the Egyptians. "Reign over" can mean to defeat. The idea is that His victory over Egypt would continue eternally; the same victories required for the salvation of His people (in whatever form) would continue always. The Red Sea was not to be seen as an isolated victory, but programmatic for all His victories. David in the Psalms so often alludes to the Red Sea victory like this; and felt he was experiencing similar salvation from God. And we can too.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For the horses of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and Yahweh brought back the waters of the sea on them; but the children of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV has "the horse of Pharaoh". Consistently, the record is focused upon this man, who pitted himself against Yahweh in abusing His people. The language of the plagues and exodus is so frequently used in the book of Revelation and other latter day prophecies, leading us to see Pharaoh as a type of the latter day antiChrist figure.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand; and all the women went out after her with tambourines and with dances- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:230 150:4'>Psa 150:4</a></em> bids all God's people take up the tambourine and dance because of what God has done and will do at the coming of His Son. The same Hebrew words are used as here. Again and again the point is made- that we are to see the Red Sea as our victory, to be replicated in essence in our lives; we too are to rejoice in that victory. "<em>They</em> went through the water on food... and (therefore) there did <em>we</em> rejoice in him" (<em><a href='B:230 66:6'>Psa 66:6</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Miriam answered them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>She appears to have sung words to them, to which they responded with a chorus. Or perhaps the idea is that she and the women answered "them" in the sense of the words sung by the men in the song of Moses, in a kind of part singing.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Sing to Yahweh, for He has triumphed gloriously. The horse and his rider He has thrown into the sea- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They ran into the sea of their own freewill (:9), but God confirmed them in this. The language is used again in the description of Babylon's judgments: "the horse and his rider... the chariot and his rider" (<em><a href='B:300 51:19-23'>Jer 51:19-23</a></em>) is quoting <em><a href='B:20 15:4'>Exo 15:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:21'>Exo 15:21</a></em>. Biblical history continually interconnects, demonstrating that the same Divine hand has worked throughout history, and likewise works in our lives according to the same style. See on :8; <em><a href='B:20 1:7'>Exo 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:25'>Exo 14:25</a></em>. &nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Shur" means 'the wall', and may refer to the wall built to define the boundary of Egypt by an earlier dynasty. <em><a href='B:40 33:8'>Num 33:8</a></em> defines the part of the wilderness as being near Etham, where there was a garrison of Egyptians (see on <em><a href='B:20 13:20'>Exo 13:20</a></em>). It had been God's intention that they would go three days journey from Egypt into the wilderness and then worship Him (<em><a href='B:20 8:27'>Exo 8:27</a></em>). But they didn't. It seems God purposefully didn't provide water for them- because this great trial was intended to lead them to worship and faith. But instead they rebelled, and His intention they would worship Him then didn't come to fruition. How many billions of such plans are made and frustrated each day by human short-sightedness... We note that very soon after their baptism (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), they ran into testing. Just as the Lord did, and as we do.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they came to Marah, they couldn’t drink from the waters of Marah, for they were bitter. Therefore its name was called Marah-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Pharaoh was condemned and Egypt overthrown because of his hard heart- but the very word is used to describe the hardness of Israel's heart at the time (<em><a href='B:20 32:9'>Exo 32:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:3-5'>Exo 33:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a></em>). Israel were really no better than Egypt- just as Egypt was plagued "so that they could not drink the water" (<em><a href='B:20 7:24'>Exo 7:24</a></em>), so we find Israel in the same situation right after leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 15:23'>Exo 15:23</a></em>). As the Egyptians were stripped of their jewellery, so Israel stripped themselves of it before the golden calf (<em><a href='B:20 12:36'>Exo 12:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 33:6'>Exo 33:6</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel continually "murmured" against Moses (<em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7-8'>Exo 16:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:3'>Exo 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:2'>Num 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). Nearly all these murmurings were related to Israel's disbelief that Moses really could bring them into the land. Likewise Israel disbelieved that eating Christ's words (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>) really could lead them to salvation; and their temptation to murmur in this way is ours too, especially in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 10:10-12'>1Co 10:10-12</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom. The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because you believed me not... you shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in the way he wrote his books.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then he cried to Yahweh. Yahweh showed him a tree, and he threw it into the waters, and the waters were made sweet- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We could see in the tree a foretaste of "the tree" on which the Lord was crucified.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There He made a statute and an ordinance for them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What exactly this was isn't defined. It seems it was some simple test of their obedience, perhaps related to the gathering of the water, just as the commandments about the gathering of the manna were a simple test of obedience- which they failed. It was intended to teach them the need for the more detailed set of ordinances which they were to soon receive (:26).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Perhaps&nbsp; <em><a href='B:300 7:22-23'>Jer 7:22-23</a></em>&nbsp;allude here: “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you”. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And there He tested them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>At the very time Israel put God to the test at Marah (<em><a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a></em>), God responded by testing <em>them</em> (<em><a href='B:20 15:25'>Exo 15:25</a></em>). When Israel were weary of God, He wearied them (<em><a href='B:290 43:22'>Isa 43:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:24'>Isa 43:24</a></em>). Because they turned their back on Him (<em><a href='B:300 2:27'>Jer 2:27</a></em>), He turned His back on them (<em><a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a></em>); because they broke His eternal covenant with them, He eventually did likewise. On the other hand, God set the rainbow in the sky so that whenever <em>He </em>looks upon it, He will remember His covenant with man (<em><a href='B:10 9:16'>Gen 9:16</a></em>). The pronouns seem wrong; we would expect to read that the rainbow is so that whenever <em>we </em>look upon it, we remember... but no. God condescends to man to such an extent that He invites us to understand that whenever we remember the covenant with Him, He does likewise.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and He said, If you will diligently listen to the voice of Yahweh your God, and will do that which is right in His eyes, and will pay attention to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you, which I have put on the Egyptians- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plagues upon the Egyptians were plagues upon their gods. If Israel worshipped their gods (and they did- <em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>), then the plagues would come upon them. And we often see the judgments upon an apostate Israel described in terms of what came upon Egypt. Thus the descriptions in Revelation of the seals and vials of judgment to come upon Israel are based around the plagues upon Egypt.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For I am Yahweh who heals you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whenever God speaks about His Name, it is in the context of His emphasizing His huge commitment to Israel as His people, often in the face of their weakness (<em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:26'>Exo 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:2'>Exo 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:5-6'>Eze 20:5-6</a></em>). The very meaning of God's Name is of itself encouraging- although it is somewhat masked in English translations. God 'is' not just in the sense that He exists, but in that He 'is' there with and for us. The verb behind 'YHWH' was "originally causative", i.e. God not only 'is' but He causes things to happen. We aren't to understand Him as passive, just a stone cold Name... but rather passionately active and causative in our sometimes apparently static and repetitive lives.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, God's healings of Israel are to be programmatic for His people of all time (<em><a href='B:230 103:3'>Psa 103:3</a></em>). It seems that as a result of their lack of faith, they were perhaps struck with some of the plagues of Egypt at this point (for they were all healthy on leaving Egypt, <em><a href='B:230 105:37'>Psa 105:37</a></em>)- and then healed from them.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They came to Elim, where there were twelve springs of water, and seventy palm trees: and they encamped there by the waters-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There were twelve wells- one for each of the tribes. The lesson was that God had foreseen Israel's need for water long ago, and arranged those wells for them. As for us in our wilderness journeys. Yet 70 is the number of the Gentile nations in Genesis 10. They were being shown that God's intention was to combine Israelites and Gentiles within a new multiethnic people of God. Perhaps this arrangement of 12 springs and 70 palms was to help Israel to better incorporate the "mixed multitude" amongst them, as being equally God's people. Hence "Elim" implies "holy trees", or "trees of God", as if to remind Israel that He accepted the mixed multitude of Gentiles as equally His redeemed people.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They took their journey from Elim-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>After one stop over to camp by the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:40 33:10-11'>Num 33:10-11</a></em>). This stop next to the Red Sea was perhaps to help them reflect further upon the wonder of their deliverance through that sea. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And all the congregation of the children of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All the congregation" could be stressing the totality of deliverance. Although it is possible some Israelites preferred Egypt and remained in Egypt, they were not now part of the congregation. Crossing the Red Sea, like baptism for us (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), defined who was in the congregation. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel continually "murmured" against Moses (<em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7-8'>Exo 16:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:3'>Exo 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:2'>Num 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). Nearly all these murmurings were related to Israel's disbelief that Moses really could bring them into the land. Likewise Israel disbelieved that eating Christ's words (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>) really could lead them to salvation; and their temptation to murmur in this way is ours too, especially in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 10:10-12'>1Co 10:10-12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "murmur" is the word for "stop", and is usually translated in that way. The idea is that they didn't want to go further on the journey; they wanted to return to Egypt. Despite the wonder of the Red Sea deliverance. Their hearts truly were in Egypt. This sense of not wanting to go onwards towards the Kingdom, to put a brake on God's saving process, is the same temptation which in essence afflicts all God's people who have started the journey with Him. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Presumably the food taken with them from Egypt was now exhausted, and perhaps they had found fish to eat during their encampment by the Red Sea mentioned in <em><a href='B:40 33:10-11'>Num 33:10-11</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and the children of Israel said to them, We wish that we had died by the hand of Yahweh in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the meat pots, when we ate our fill of bread, for you have brought us out into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The number of firstborn males after Israel left Egypt was remarkably small (around 20,000, <em><a href='B:40 3:43'>Num 3:43</a></em>). Women in most primitive societies have an average of 7 births. this would mean that given a total population of around 2,800,000 on leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>), there should have been around 400,000 firstborn males. But instead, there is only a fraction of this number. Why? Did all Israel eat the Passover?&nbsp;Were many in fact slain. My suggestion- and this is well in the category of things you will never know for sure and can only ponder- is that many Hebrew firstborns died on Passover night. Israel were warned that if they did not properly keep the Passover, “the Destroyer” Angel would kill their firstborn (<em><a href='B:20 12:23'>Exo 12:23</a></em>). “The Destroyer” is mentioned in <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>: “Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the Destroyer” (<em>olothreutes; </em>this is a proper noun in the Greek). Who was the Destroyer? If Scripture interprets Scripture, it was the ‘Destroyer’ Angel of Passover night. In similar vein <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> speaks of “He (the Angel) that destroyed (Gk. <em>olothreuo</em>) the firstborn”. <em>Very</em> soon afterwards, the people reminded Moses of this incident: “Would to God <em>we</em> (maybe this is the emphasis) had (also) died by the hand of the Lord (a phrase often associated with Angel’s work at Passover: Joshua 4; Joshua 24; <em><a href='B:290 11:11'>Isa 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 19:16'>Isa 19:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 9:15'>Dan 9:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 8:9'>Heb 8:9</a></em>) in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pot (Young’s Literal) and when we did eat bread” (<em><a href='B:20 16:3'>Exo 16:3</a></em>). They weren’t just saying they wished they had died in Egypt; they wished they had died by the hand of the Lord. Sitting by the flesh pot and eating bread is perhaps a reference to eating Passover that night, when in (perhaps) 90% of Hebrew families the firstborn had slumped down in death. They wished they too had died that Passover night. They felt Moses was going to kill them as, by implication, they blamed him for killing the firstborn.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had been weak and discouraged in the same way, accusing God of wanting to do them evil rather than save them (<em><a href='B:20 5:23'>Exo 5:23</a></em>). And now this was what the people concluded in the desert, when they complained Yahweh had brought them into the desert to slay them. Moses would have found patience with them, because he would have realized that this same desperate conclusion, in the heat of desperation, was what he too had been guilty of. It is awareness of our own failures which provides the basis for others in theirs. God is without that aspect; His patience with human sin is therefore the more wonderful than ours.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Yahweh said to Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from the sky for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law, or not- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 5:13'>Exo 5:13</a></em> speaks of the 'daily work quota' of Israel under Egyptian abuse. But the phrase is used of their daily work for Yahweh, in collecting manna (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>) and serving in the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:30 23:37'>Lev 23:37</a></em>). They were being reminded that they had changed masters when they crossed the Red Sea, just as Paul says happens when we are baptized (Romans 6). And the Red Sea crossing represented baptism into Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). Like us, Israel were not radically free to do as they pleased. What happened was that they changed masters; hence the appeal to Pharaoh to let God's people go, that they may serve Him rather than Pharaoh. We too will only find ultimate freedom through this servitude to God's ways, and will finally emerge into the radical liberty of the children of God in the Kingdom age (<em><a href='B:520 8:21'>Rom 8:21</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"A day's portion" is literally 'a word for a day'. "Portion" is <em>dabar</em>, the common word translated "word". Their obedience to the commandments relating to this gift of bread was to be a test of their obedience to God's word.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It shall come to pass on the sixth day, that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel's wilderness journey is a clear enough type of our own path after baptism. They were fed with manna one day at a time- this is so stressed (<em><a href='B:20 16:4'>Exo 16:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:19-20'>Exo 16:19-20</a></em>). There was to be no hoarding of manna- anything extra was to be shared with others (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em>). But we live in a world where the financial challenges of retirement, housing, small family size (if any family at all)... mean that there appears no other option but to 'hoard manna' for the future. To some extent this may be a reflection of the way that life in these very last days is indeed quite different to anything previously known in history; but all the same, we face a very real challenge. Are we going to hoard manna, for our retirement, for our unknown futures? Or will we rise up to the challenge to trust in God's day by day provision, and share what's left over? "Give us this day our bread-for-today" really needs to be prayed by us daily. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, At evening, then you shall know that Yahweh has brought you out from the land of Egypt- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The stress is upon "Yahweh". The people wanted to perceive Moses as the one who had brought them out of Egypt, perhaps attributing the Red Sea deliverance to some ability to work magic which they supposed he had. Despite all the stress upon Yahweh as their deliverer, they preferred to think it was all due to a man. We have here a window onto the mindset which human nature so easily slips into; attributing God's clear action in our lives to human power. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and in the morning, then you shall see the glory of Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I will suggest on :14 that when the cloud of glory went up from them in the morning, the manna was revealed. The glory of Yahweh was therefore not simply a visible aura of Divine light, but His glory was revealed in providing food for them at the very time of their rebellion. For His glory is in His grace to sinners.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because He hears your murmurings against Yahweh. Who are we, that you murmur against us?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel’s rejection of Moses was a rejection of the God who was working through Moses to redeem them. Thus Korah and his followers “strove against Moses... when they strove against Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:40 26:9'>Num 26:9</a></em> cp. 16:11). Moses understood that when Israel murmured against him, they murmured against Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7'>Exo 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 17:5'>Num 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>). They thrust Moses away from them (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>) - yet the same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a></em> concerning how God still has not cast away Israel; He has not treated them as they treated Him through their rejection of Moses and Jesus, who manifested Him. "Who are we...?" has the flavour of Moses' first response to his Divine commissioning: "Who am I?". Through the experience of their complaining and murmuring, he was further humbled.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, Now Yahweh shall give you meat to eat in the evening, and in the morning bread to fully satisfy you-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It's twice emphasized in <em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:12'>Exo 16:12</a></em> that the manna would completely fill them. In the morning, said Moses, you shall be filled. So the families were to have one big meal a day. Most rural African cultures likewise survive quite happily on one big meal in the morning. The manna gave complete satisfaction; and Jesus commented on this when He said that through His word we would be completely filled, we would eat and not hunger, drink and not thirst. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Because Yahweh hears your murmurings which you murmur against Him. And who are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against Yahweh-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel's murmurings about the lack of food did not discourage Moses, because he now better perceived the degree to which he was manifesting God. Here we see the beginnings of some real humility in Moses, due to his appreciation of God manifestation in him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Aaron, Tell all the congregation of the children of Israel, ‘Come near before Yahweh, for He has heard your murmurings’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Come near before Yahweh" is usually translated "offer (sacrifice) before Yahweh", and is translated that way multiple times. Although rarely (<em><a href='B:20 16:9'>Exo 16:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:5'>Lev 9:5</a></em>) it is used of the congregation coming near before Yahweh. But the congregation didn't generally want to come before Yahweh, and so He chose just the Levites to come before Yahweh (<em><a href='B:40 8:10'>Num 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:9'>Num 16:9</a></em> s.w.). It was God's intention that all Israel should be His servants, a nation of priests. But He changed and ammended His approach, and chose just the Levites for this. We see here how open God is to change, so that by all means He may have relationship with His people. Under the new covenant, all believers are part of a royal priesthood (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>) as He initially intended even under the old covenant. And yet there is always the tendency to leave the priestly work to specialists rather than perceiving our personal call to do it.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angel dwelt in the cloud, which at that time stood ahead of them in the surrounding desert. But it seems now that Angel revealed himself more, so that the glory of Yahweh visibly appeared through the cloud. But see on :14.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but there may well have been a Divinely inspired editor who added comments like this.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At evening you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread: and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were to be filled with the manna, so that they would know that "I am Yahweh your God" (<em><a href='B:20 16:12'>Exo 16:12</a></em>). This was to be the meaning of the manna. There was a daily manifestation of God's glory along with the manna (<em><a href='B:20 16:7'>Exo 16:7</a></em> cp. 12). The daily sense of living with God's glory is so vital for each of us in our deeply personal spirituality. We know that faith comes from hearing God's word; so our feeding on God's word should lead us to know Yahweh. There was something intensely personal about the teaching of the manna: "He fed thee (singular- not "ye") with manna, that he might make thee know that (every) man (lives spiritually) by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:50 8:3'>Deu 8:3</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened at evening that quail came up and covered the camp; and in the morning the dew lay around the camp-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The quail was among the ancient Egyptians the emblem of safety and security". In which case we marvel at God's grace; assuring His rebellious people of their security at the very point of their rebellion against Him. <em><a href='B:40 11:31'>Num 11:31</a></em> says they were brought by a wind, and we have noted how Angel-winds had brought the plagues and driven back and forth the waters of the Red Sea. They were being taught how the essence of God's previous work for them (at their deliverance from the world and Red Sea baptism) was continuing for them. <em><a href='B:230 78:28'>Psa 78:28</a></em> stresses that God thoughtfully made the birds settle immediately around their tents- as if delivering food to their door, showing such grace at the very time of their murmuring against Him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the dew that lay had gone, behold, on the surface of the wilderness was a small round thing, small as the frost on the ground- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The dew would have come from a low lying cloud, and when it lifted the manna was revealed. The cloud of dew may have been part of the cloud of glory, through which the glory of God was to be revealed (:7). The glory of Yahweh was therefore not simply a visible aura of Divine light, the so called shekinah glory, but His glory was revealed in providing food for them at the very time of their rebellion. For His glory is in His grace to sinners.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, What is it? For they didn’t know what it was. Moses said to them, It is the bread which Yahweh has given you to eat- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As noted on :14, the provision of manna was the revelation of God's glory, in that He was being gracious to sinners. But they didn't perceive His glory in providing food for their needs; just as they didn't perceive His glory in the Lord Jesus, who taught that the manna, the bread of God, represented Himself. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded: Gather of it everyone according to his eating; an omer a head, according to the number of your persons, you shall take it, every man for those who are in his tent-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>An omer is three pints, about 1:5 liters. The Mosaic command to give, every man according to the blessing with which God had blessed him (<em><a href='B:50 16:17'>Deu 16:17</a></em>), is purposely similar in phrasing to the command to eat of the Passover lamb, every man according to his need; and to partake of the manna (cp. the Lord Jesus), every man according to his need (<em><a href='B:20 12:4'>Exo 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:6'>Exo 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:16'>Exo 16:16</a></em>). According to the desperation of our need, so we partake of Christ; and in response, according to our blessing, we give, in response to the grace of His giving. &nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel did so, and gathered some more, some less- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They failed the test of simple obedience to the regulations given. They were to gather enough for their families. But some gathered more than that. See on :18. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they measured it with an omer, he who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack. They gathered every man according to his eating-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This states that the Israelites in the wilderness went out and gathered manna, they returned and measured it with an omer measure, and found that each person had the same omer of manna. The Jewish Midrash strayed from the Bible text, claiming that the stronger men gathered more manna and gave to the weaker, so that everyone had the same. This is a twist of the actual Biblical text; and yet Paul alludes to the idea in <em><a href='B:540 8:15'>2Co 8:15</a></em> in order to make a point to his audience- that the wealthy should support the poorer. He does so in the same spirit as a Christian might quote the Koran in order to make a point to a Moslem- but this doesn’t mean that the Christian believes the Koran is God’s word. Paul and the Bible writers weren’t so on the back foot all the time that they as it were footnoted their allusions to incorrect beliefs with comments to the effect that “Now this is not actually what happened”.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to them, Let no one leave of it until the morning- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord alludes to this in bidding us take no anxious thought for tomorrow (<em><a href='B:470 6:34'>Mat 6:34</a></em>). They were not to store it up for the next day, but trust in God's provision each day. And again, the Lord's prayer alludes to this, in asking for the bread of today to be given us. The implications of these principles are huge, larger for us than for any other generation- living as we do in an age where we generally have no personal agricultural provision for our food, and must plan our savings in order to survive. Nothing was to be left until morning, just as with the Passover lamb (<em><a href='B:20 12:10'>Exo 12:10</a></em> s.w.). See on :24,29. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding they didn’t listen to Moses, but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and became foul: and Moses was angry with them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Foul" is s.w. "stink", used of the results of some of the plagues upon Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 7:18'>Exo 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:21'>Exo 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 8:14'>Exo 8:14</a></em>). Again we see the theme of a disobedient Israel being treated as Egypt, and experiencing their judgments. For their hearts were in Egypt. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They gathered it morning by morning, everyone according to his eating. When the sun grew hot, it melted- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :22, it could be that this means that when they measured what they had gathered, they found it was just enough for their needs. We note too that they were encouraged to be morning people, to gather the food in the morning, before the sun was high in the sky. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one, and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is an apparent confusion as to whether Moses had told them on the sixth day to gather twice as much. I suggest that when they measured what they had gathered, they found it came to two and not one omer. And Moses then explained why this was the case (:23). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to them, This is that which Yahweh has spoken, ‘Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to Yahweh. Bake that which you want to bake, and boil that which you want to boil; and all that remains over lay up for yourselves to be kept until the morning’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This was so that they did not bake nor boil on the Sabbath- even though the legislation about the Sabbath had not yet formally been given. But clearly the law of Moses was a codification of previously existing conceptions and Divine requirements.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They laid it up until the morning, as Moses asked, and it didn’t become foul, neither was there any worm in it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :19 that not storing manna for the next day was the basis of the Lord's command to not worry about tomorrow, and not to think we must prepare against it. But what we are to do is instead store up against the eternal tomorrow of God's Kingdom, which was represented by the Sabbath of rest, the seventh day of the creation week (<em><a href='B:650 4:9'>Heb 4:9</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to Yahweh. Today you shall not find it in the field- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These were the words of Moses on the first Sabbath after the manna was given. That morning, they were told to eat "that" which they had gathered on the previous day. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day is the Sabbath. In it there shall be none- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The concept of the Sabbath may have been around prior to the time of Moses. But Israel in Egypt had not kept it, and so they are now being helped to get into the rhythm of keeping it- through the manna being given in double rate on the sixth day. We note how gentle God is in preparing the way towards obedience.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the seventh day, that some of the people went out to gather, and they found none- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Their disbelief and disobedience is quite astonishing. The miracle of the Red Sea obviously meant little to them; and Pentecostalism needs to note that it is simply not Bible teaching that dramatic miracles are required in order to believe. Israel had such miracles, and clearly were unaffected beyond an initial "Praise God!", no matter how sincerely that was felt at that moment. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The manna represented the word of God and the salvation which comes through its revelation of Christ (John 6). Israel could gather it on six days of the week, but not on the seventh. The seventh day represents the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:650 4:9'>Heb 4:9</a></em>; cp. how the manna ceased as soon as they entered Canaan, representing the Kingdom). Yet on the seventh day Israel sought to collect manna (<em><a href='B:20 16:27'>Exo 16:27</a></em>), but found none- as the foolish virgins of the new Israel will seek the oil of the word when it is no longer available.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :27. Again, their disobedience is presented in terms of how Pharaoh and the Egyptians had sinned. For it was Pharaoh who had "refused" to obey God's commandment to let Israel go (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 4:23'>Exo 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:14'>Exo 7:14</a></em>). Indeed, "How long do you refuse...?" was the very phrase addressed to Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 10:3'>Exo 10:3</a></em>). Israel never left Egypt in their hearts, and acted as Egyptians, worshipping their gods still (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>).And so they are spoken to as the Egyptians they really were.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, because Yahweh has given you the Sabbath, therefore He gives you on the sixth day the bread of two days. Everyone stay in his place. Let no one go out of his place on the seventh day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are a number of similarities between the record of the gathering of the manna and that of the Passover. They were to gather the manna according to the size of their families, and the collection was to be organized by the head of the house. Nothing was to be left until morning (<em><a href='B:20 12:10'>Exo 12:10</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 16:19-20'>Exo 16:19-20</a></em>). They were to not go out of their houses (to get manna) on the seventh day, as Israel had to remain at home on Passover night. This is all the language of the Passover. The lamb represented Jesus, and so did the manna. In John 6 the Lord says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life; and He says the same about eating His words, which He has likened to the manna (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>). The idea may also be that they were to keep every seventh day as if it were a mini Passover, a celebration of the exodus deliverance. No wonder Paul compares the weekly breaking of bread service in Corinth to the Passover (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So the people rested on the seventh day- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Divine record is being very generous to them. Because some of them didn't rest that seventh day (:27).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The house of Israel called its name Manna, and it was like coriander seed, white; and its taste was like wafers with honey- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Manna", literally "What is it?", suggests they never really grasped what it was. It was the revelation of Yahweh's grace to them, in that despite their deep apostacy and unbelief, He was daily feeding and saving them. And so the Lord Jesus likens Himself to the manna in John 6, seeing that He was likewise not comprehended by Israel. The taste was as of "fresh oil" (<em><a href='B:40 11:8'>Num 11:8</a></em>). The freshness of the taste was to demonstrate that it had been created specifically for them every morning. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said, This is the thing which Yahweh has commanded, ‘Let an omer-full of it be kept throughout your generations, that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"An omer" is LXX "the omer", suggesting that the pot in which it was placed contained an omer in volume<em>. </em>If the pot of manna was to be kept "hidden" within the ark in the most holy place, briefly visited once / year by the High Priest alone, we wonder how this could be 'seen' by subsequent generations. Was the high priest on their behalf to report back to them about it each year? I suggest however that God's purpose is open, and He changes the details as the Divine-human encounter progresses. Maybe it was initially His view that the pot of manna be kept in a more openly accessible place, but He withdrew the witness into the ark in the most Holy, as He perceived Israel's hardness of heart.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Aaron, Take a pot, and put an omer-full of manna in it, and lay it up before Yahweh, to be kept throughout your generations- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The manna, which went bad after only 12 hours, was miraculously preserved. It was a testimony to God's grace. He gave them manna at the very time that they rebelled against Him; and had as it were immortalized this piece of very temporary manna. The message was that His grace can likewise immortalize the weak human beings whom His grace engages with.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>As Yahweh commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was to be "before the Testimony" and yet somehow visible to all Israel (:32). I suggest that God's primary intention was that the place of "the testimony" was to be regularly opened to the common people, or the pot of manna regularly displayed to them. It was intended to be in front of the ark, or the tables of the covenant (both of which could be termed "the Testimony"), perhaps not even in the Most Holy Place; but it ended up being placed inside the ark (<em><a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a></em>), and became known as the "hidden manna" (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>), when it was intended to be a public, openly beheld witness. But as Israel retreated from God, so it seems to me did Yahweh as it were retreat from His people, hiding Himself&nbsp; ever deeper within the ark, the Most Holy place etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The children of Israel ate the manna forty years, until they came to an inhabited land. They ate the manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This could suggest that we feed on the Lord Jesus and His word throughout our journey to the Kingdom, but then there will spiritual sustenance of a completely different nature. We will have no need of spiritual nutrition in the sense we required it during the journey there. The Bible is often not precise with figures and numerics, as was the case with all Semitic writings. God didn't feel the need to defend Himself against petty critics. And so here, the actual period was one month less than 40 years (<em><a href='B:20 16:1'>Exo 16:1</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:60 5:10-12'>Jos 5:10-12</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Roughly 1:5 liters or three pints. Here and :35 would be examples of where a later, Divinely inspired editor (Ezra?) added explanatory words to the Pentateuch.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the congregation of the children of Israel travelled from the wilderness of Sin, by their journeys, according to Yahweh’s commandment, and encamped in Rephidim; but there was no water for the people to drink- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The events of Exodus 17 are the basis for Psalms 95. This is largely a Psalm of praise for what God did for Israel in the wilderness, whilst also commenting on the way they tragically put God to the test, and complained about His care for them. Now the words of <em><a href='B:230 95:7-11'>Psa 95:7-11</a></em> are directly quoted in <em><a href='B:650 3:7-11'>Heb 3:7-11</a></em> concerning the experience of the new Israel. The simple conclusion from this is that we are really intended to see the events of Exodus 17 as directly relevant for us.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore the people quarrelled with Moses, and said, Give us water to drink. Moses said to them, Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test Yahweh?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Stephen in Acts 7 stresses the way in which Moses was rejected by Israel as a type of Christ. At age 40, Moses was "thrust away" by one of the Hebrews; and on the wilderness journey the Jews “thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt" (<em><a href='B:510 7:27'>Act 7:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:35'>Act 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em>). This suggests that there was far more antagonism between Moses and Israel than we gather from the Old Testament record- after the pattern of Israel's treatment of Jesus. It would seem from <em><a href='B:510 7:39'>Act 7:39</a></em> that after the golden calf incident, the majority of Israel cold shouldered Moses. Once the point sank in that they were not going to enter the land, this feelings must have turned into bitter resentment. They were probably unaware of how Moses had been willing to offer his eternal destiny for their salvation; they would not have entered into the intensity of Moses' prayers for their salvation. The record seems to place Moses and "the people" in juxtaposition around 100 times (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:2-3'>Exo 17:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 32:1'>Exo 32:1</a></em> NIV; <em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em> NIV; 20:2,3; 21:5). They accused Moses of being a cruel cult leader, bent on leading them out into the desert to kill them and steal their wealth from them (<em><a href='B:40 16:13-14'>Num 16:13-14</a></em>)- when in fact Moses was delivering them from the house of bondage, and was willing to lay down his own salvation for theirs. The way Moses submerged his own pain is superb; both of their rejection of him and of God's rejection of him from entering the Kingdom. The style of Moses' writing in <em><a href='B:40 20:12-14'>Num 20:12-14</a></em> reveals this submerging of his own pain. He speaks of himself in the third person, omitting any personal reflection on his own feelings: "The Lord spake unto Moses... Because you believed me not... you shall not bring the congregation into the land... and Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the King of Edom...". Likewise all the references to “the Lord spake unto Moses” (<em><a href='B:30 1:1'>Lev 1:1</a></em>). Moses submerged his own personality in writing his books.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people were thirsty for water there; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us, our children, and our livestock with thirst?- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel continually "murmured" against Moses (<em><a href='B:20 15:24'>Exo 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:2'>Exo 16:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:7-8'>Exo 16:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 17:3'>Exo 17:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:2'>Num 14:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:27'>Num 14:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:29'>Num 14:29</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 1:27'>Deu 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:25'>Psa 106:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>). Nearly all these murmurings were related to Israel's disbelief that Moses really could bring them into the land. Likewise Israel disbelieved that eating Christ's words (<em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>) really could lead them to salvation; and their temptation to murmur in this way is ours too, especially in the last days (<em><a href='B:530 10:10-12'>1Co 10:10-12</a></em>). The Hebrew for "murmur" is the word for "stop", and is usually translated in that way. The idea is that they didn't want to go further on the journey; they wanted to return to Egypt. Despite the wonder of the Red Sea deliverance. Their hearts truly were in Egypt. This sense of not wanting to go onwards towards the Kingdom, to put a brake on God's saving process, is the same temptation which in essence afflicts all God's people who have started the journey with Him. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had been weak and discouraged in the same way, accusing God of wanting to do them evil rather than save them (<em><a href='B:20 5:23'>Exo 5:23</a></em>). And now this was what the people concluded in the desert, when they complained Yahweh had brought them into the desert to slay them. Moses would have found patience with them, because he would have realized that this same desperate conclusion, in the heat of desperation, was what he too had been guilty of. It is awareness of our own failures which provides the basis for others in theirs. God is without that aspect; His patience with human sin is therefore the more wonderful than ours.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses cried to Yahweh, saying, What shall I do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As at the crossing of the Red Sea, Moses responds to the people in a very confident manner, when his own cries to God indicate the depth of his distress. Death by stoning was a punishment for religious apostacy; perhaps this reflected their commitment to the gods of Egypt which they then worshipped (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Walk on before the people, and take the elders of Israel with you, and take the rod in your hand with which you struck the Nile, and go- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, unbelieving Israel are made parallel to Pharaoh and his Egyptian courtiers. For the miracle was to persuade Israel and bring them to repentance, just as had been intended with the Egyptians through the miracle performed with water through striking with the rod.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God through the Angel had earlier stood upon a rock in Sinai with Moses next to Him (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>). Later, Yahweh asks Moses to stand upon a rock in Sinai next to Him (<em><a href='B:20 33:21'>Exo 33:21</a></em> s.w.). We see how God gently and progressively leads His people closer to Him, using every experience He gives us to prepare for the next one, on an ever more intimate level with Him.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink. Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The first time Moses struck the rock, he was standing in the presence of the Angel- "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock" (<em><a href='B:20 17:6'>Exo 17:6</a></em>), but it would seem that the second time Moses took the rod "from before the LORD (the Angel)" (<em><a href='B:40 20:9'>Num 20:9</a></em>) and went alone to the rock; this lack of Angelic presence perhaps accounts for his rashness at this time.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul in <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em> alludes to a Jewish tradition that the rock followed Israel through the wilderness, always giving water. Some traditions suggest Miriam carried it; the supposed “Rock of Moses” is a piece of rock which could have been carried. Paul emphasizes that the point of his allusion is that the water which they drank of represented “Christ”, the strength which comes from Him as the smitten rock; he alludes to the tradition just as he quotes pagan poets and makes a point out of their words (<em><a href='B:510 17:28'>Act 17:28</a></em>). The Bible often features this kind of thing; and God isn’t so paranoiac and apologetic that He as it were has to footnote such things with a comment that “of course, this isn’t true”.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It should be evident enough that the rock which Moses smote in the desert was simply a rock; it wasn't Christ personally. The Jewish book of Wisdom claimed that "the rock was Wisdom" (Wisdom 11). Paul, as he so often does, is picking up this phrase and saying that more essentially, the rock represented Jesus personally, and not 'Wisdom' in the Jewish misunderstanding of this figure. It "was" Him in the sense that it represented Him. Likewise He said about the communion wine: "This is my blood". It wasn't literally His blood; it was and is His blood only in that it represents His blood. Paul is describing the experience of Israel in the wilderness because he saw in it some similarities with the walk of the Corinthian believers towards God's kingdom. The whole of 1 Corinthians 10 is full of such reference. And this is why he should speak about the rock which Moses smote as a symbol of Christ. The Israelites had been baptized into Moses, just as Corinth had been baptized into Christ; and both Israel and Corinth ate "the same spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink". "Spiritual food... spiritual drink" shows that Paul saw the manna they ate and the water they drank as spiritually symbolic- just as He saw the rock as symbolic. Paul goes on in <em><a href='B:530 10:16-17'>1Co 10:16-17</a></em> to write of how Corinth also ate and drank of Christ in the breaking of bread, and in chapter 11 he brings home the point: like Israel, we can eat and drink those symbols, "the same spiritual meat... the same spiritual drink", having been baptized into Christ as they were into Moses, and think that thereby we are justified to do as we like in our private lives. This is the point and power of all this allusion. The picture of their carcasses rotting in the wilderness is exhortation enough. Baptism and observing the 'breaking of bread' weren't enough to save Israel.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus Himself had explained in John 6 how the manna represented His words and His sacrifice. He spoke of how out of Him would come "living water", not still well water, but bubbling water fresh from a fountain (<em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>). And He invites His people to drink of it. It was this kind of water that bubbled out of the smitten rock. <em><a href='B:230 78:15-16'>Psa 78:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:20'>Psa 78:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:41'>Psa 105:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em> describe it with a variety of words: gushing, bursting, water running down like a high mountain stream, "flowed abundantly".....as if the fountains of deep hidden water had burst to the surface ("as out of the great depths", <em><a href='B:230 78:15'>Psa 78:15</a></em>). So the Lord was saying that He was the rock, and we like Israel drinking of what came out of Him.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Law of Moses included several rituals which depended upon what is called "the running water"(<em><a href='B:30 14:5-6'>Lev 14:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:50-52'>Lev 14:50-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:18'>Lev 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:17'>Num 19:17</a></em>). "Running" translates a Hebrew word normally translated "living". This living water was what came out of the smitten rock. The Lord taught that the water that would come out of Him would only come after His glorification (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>)- an idea He seems to link with His death rather than His ascension (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> cp. 21:19; <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>). When He was glorified on the cross, then the water literally flowed from His side on His death. The rock was "smitten", and the water then came out. The Hebrew word used here is usually translated to slay, slaughter, murder. It occurs in two clearly Messianic passages: "...they talk to the hurt of him (Christ) whom thou hast smitten"(<em><a href='B:230 69:26'>Psa 69:26</a></em>); "we esteemed him (as He hung on the cross) smitten of God"(<em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It was in a sense God who "clave the rock" so that the waters gushed out (<em><a href='B:230 78:15'>Psa 78:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>). "Clave" implies that the rock was literally broken open; and in this we see a dim foreshadowing of the gaping hole in the Lord's side after the spear thrust, as well as a more figurative image of how His life and mind were broken apart in His final sacrifice. Yahweh, presumably represented by an Angel, stood upon (or 'above') the rock when Moses, on Yahweh's behalf, struck the rock. Here we see a glimpse into the nature of the Father's relationship with the Son on the cross. He was both with the Son, identified with Him just as the Angel stood on the rock or hovered above it as Moses struck it... and yet He also was the one who clave that rock, which was Christ. As Abraham with Isaac was a symbol of both the Father and also the slayer, so in our far smaller experience, the Father gives us the trials which He stands squarely with us through. And within the wonder of His self-revelation, Yahweh repeatedly reveals Himself as "the rock"- especially in Deuteronomy. And yet that smitten rock "was (a symbol of) Christ". On the cross, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself". There He was the most intensely manifested in His beloved Son. There God was spat upon, His love rejected. There we see the utter humility and self-abnegation of the Father. And we His children must follow the same path, for the salvation of others.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The rock "followed (better, 'accompanied') them" (<em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>). We must understand this as a metonymy, whereby "the rock" is put for what came out of it, i.e. the fountain of living water. It seems that this stream went with them on their journey. The statement that "they drank" of the rock is in the imperfect tense, denoting continuous action- they kept on drinking of that water, it wasn't a one time event, it continued throughout the wilderness journey. A careful reading of <em><a href='B:20 17:5-6'>Exo 17:5-6</a></em> reveals that at Rephidim, Moses was told to "Go on before the people", to Horeb. There he struck the rock, and yet the people drank the water in Rephidim. The water flowed a long way that day, and there is no reason to think that it didn't flow with them all the time. The records make it clear enough that the miraculous provision of water was in the same context as God's constant provision of food and protection to the people (<em><a href='B:50 8:15-16'>Deu 8:15-16</a></em>). The rock gave water throughout the wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>). This would surely necessitate that the giving of water at Horeb was not a one-off solution to a crisis. There is a word play in the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>: "He led them through the Horebs (AV 'desert places')" by making water flow from the rock. The Horeb experience was repeated for 40 years; as if the rock went on being smitten. Somehow the water from that smitten rock went with them, fresh and bubbling as it was the first moment the rock was smitten, right through the wilderness. It was living, spring water- not lying around in puddles. The water that came from that one rock tasted as if God had opened up fresh springs and torrents in the desert (<em><a href='B:230 74:15'>Psa 74:15</a></em> NAS). It always tasted as if it was just gushing out of the spring; and this wonder is commented upon by both David and Isaiah (<em><a href='B:230 78:15-16'>Psa 78:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:20'>Psa 78:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:41'>Psa 105:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>). It was as if the rock had just been struck, and the water was flowing out fresh for the first time.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In this miracle, God clave the rock and there came out rivers (<em><a href='B:420 3:9'>Hab 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:16'>Psa 78:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:20'>Psa 78:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:20'>Isa 43:20</a></em>). Each part of Israel's encampment had the water as it were brought to their door. And so it is in our experience of Christ, and the blessing enabled by His sacrifice. The blessings that come to us are deeply personal, and directed to us individually. He died once, long ago, and yet the effect of His sacrifice is ever new. In our experience, it's as if He has died and risen for us every time we obtain forgiveness, or any other grace to help in our times of need. We live in newness of life. The cross is in that sense ongoing; He dies and lives again for every one who comes to Him. And yet at the end of their wilderness journey, Moses reflected that Israel had forgotten the rock that had given them birth. The water had become such a regular feature of their lives that they forgot the rock in Horeb that it flowed from. They forgot that 'Horeb' means 'a desolate place', and yet they had thankfully drunk of the water the first time in Rephidim, 'the place of comfort'. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because the children of Israel quarrelled, and because they put Yahweh to the test, saying, Is Yahweh among us, or not?-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The continual presence of the stream of water amongst th<em>e</em>m (see on :6) was evidence that He was among them. The Angel was visibly dwelling amongst them in the pillar of fire and cloud; and yet faith is clearly enough not based upon that which is seen. The visible evidence was clearly not enough to convict them; for as <em><a href='B:650 11:1-2'>Heb 11:1-2</a></em> explains, faith is not based upon that which is visible.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 25:18'>Deu 25:18</a></em> fills us in with some more details: "(Amalek) smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary". So Israel were "faint and weary", some of them had fallen by the wayside, others were being picked off almost daily by the bands of aggressive Amalekites. Israel were living through the aftermath of their rebellion against Moses; they had been chronically thirsty, and perhaps their spiritual tiredness was matched by the mental and physical faintness of clinical dehydration. The effects of this can last quite some time after liquid is received. So they were at low ebb. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Joshua, Choose men for us, and go out, fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with God’s rod in my hand- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Despite his youth, Joshua's love of the word, and subsequent spiritual insight, led him to be chosen to accompany Moses, to witness the mighty theophany in the mount. In his relative youth, soon after leaving Egypt, Joshua was made the leader of the Israelite army which fought Amalek. He was told to compose that army of men of his personal choice (<em><a href='B:20 17:9'>Exo 17:9</a></em>). One wonders if the condemned generation had much heart for a fight. Can we not imagine him choosing the zealous young reformers of Egypt, along with the warrior-priests?&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Joshua did as Moses had told him, and fought with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The battle which swayed to and fro between Israel and Amalek clearly points forward to our battle with the flesh. Moses/Jesus is away above us, earnestly praying for our victory. Yet in the same way as Israel had Joshua actually with them in the field, so Joshua- Jesus is not only some remote Heavenly helper. He is with us, leading us in the practical business of fighting this war. The personal effort which the Israelites had to make to follow Joshua is surely implied by the fact the victory was no walk-over. The weak among Israel were killed by the Amalekites (<em><a href='B:50 25:17-18'>Deu 25:17-18</a></em>); despite the incredible level of Christ's mediation for us, such is the power of sin and the apathy of human nature that we can still lose the battle. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Given the similarities with the battle against Amalek, were Joshua's arms held up in fervent prayer in <em><a href='B:60 8:26'>Jos 8:26</a></em>? This is a common association with upholden arms. Moses held his hand up, and Joshua led the army into battle, succeeding because Moses had his hands held up in prayer (<em><a href='B:20 17:10'>Exo 17:10</a></em>). Now, Joshua is the one holding his hands up in prayer, whilst Israel are in battle. Lesson: We go through experiences which later repeat; and we are in the position of those who had before prayed for us, and are expected to replicate their examples.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Uplifted hands are something consistently- and frequently associated with intense prayer, often for the forgiveness of God's people Israel (<em><a href='B:310 2:19'>Lam 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 6:12-13'>2Ch 6:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:150 9:5'>Ezr 9:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 28:2'>Psa 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 141:2'>Psa 141:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:8'>1Ti 2:8</a></em>). The only time we read of Moses lifting up his hands elsewhere is in <em><a href='B:20 9:28-29'>Exo 9:28-29</a></em>, where his spreading out of his hands is made parallel with his entreating of God to lift the plagues on Egypt. It must be significant that uplifted hands is also related to a confirmation of God's covenant (see especially <em><a href='B:330 20:5-6'>Eze 20:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:15'>Eze 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:23'>Eze 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:28'>Eze 20:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:42'>Eze 20:42</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:7'>Eze 36:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 47:14'>Eze 47:14</a></em>); for this is exactly what Christ did on the cross. And in a sense, this is what was happening in Exodus 17; Israel had sinned, God had forgiven them, and was reconfirming the covenant through Moses (notice that one of the terms of the covenant was that God would save Israel from their enemies, e.g. Amalek). &nbsp;See on <em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 49:22'>Gen 49:22</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As the Lord Jesus prayed on the cross, so we should arm ourselves with the same attitude of mind in prayer (<em><a href='B:670 4:1'>1Pe 4:1</a></em>). <em><a href='B:650 12:12'>Heb 12:12</a></em> alludes here: "Lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees". This is an allusion back to feeble-kneed Moses, with his hanging-down hands being held up. And the apostle says: 'You are the one with feeble knees and hands, represented by Moses in Exodus 17!' - although Moses is also representing Christ praying for us on the cross. So the Spirit is teaching us that with the intensity that Moses prayed for Israel's salvation on that hill in Exodus 17, with the intensity that Christ prayed on the hill of Golgotha - so we should be praying for each other's salvation, and our own.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side. His hands were steady until sunset-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A righteous man, Moses the superb and detailed type of Christ, with his hands above his head in prayer, fellowshipping Israel's sufferings, battling with intense spiritual, mental and physical weariness, praying intensely, with a man either side of him, until sundown. Of course this is pointing forward to our Lord's crucifixion- on account of which our weariness can really be overcome, we really can find the victory over sin which we fain would have. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses began to pray standing up, with his hands above his head, with the blazing midday sun beating down upon him (so is implied by the fact that he kept his hands steady until the sun went down. The battle would surely have lasted a few hours; perhaps eight, which was the length of time the Lord hung on the cross. But he just couldn't maintain this intensity of mental and spiritual concentration; he let down his hands. But from his high viewpoint, he could see (and hear?) the panic of Israel as they started to flee before their enemies. So he returned to his mental battle. No doubt when he let down his hands, he continued praying, but not so intensely. Yet he came to realize, perhaps after a few cycles of Israel starting to flee before Amalek, that his prayer was absolutely essential for Israel's survival and victory. But he knew that he just couldn't physically go on. His knees were weak, he was going to have to abandon his favourite prayer posture of standing (cp. the earlier records of his prayers in Exodus). His mind must have desperately raced as to how he could go on. At the back of his mind, he would have thrown his predicament upon the Lord. And a way was made. "They took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands" (v:12). Note how Moses did not waste his energy in getting the stone for himself; we get the picture of total mental devotion to Israel's cause, a man all consumed with his prayer, being humanly helped by lesser men. Israel's salvation depended on his totally voluntary intercession. The type is powerful. Peter reasons that Christ's attitude in prayer should be ours (<em><a href='B:670 4:1'>1Pe 4:1</a></em>). His prayers then, and ours now, were a struggle, after the pattern of Jacob.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>John’s Gospel has many references to Moses. When John records the death of the Lord with two men either side of Him, he seems to do so with his mind on the record of Moses praying with Aaron and Hur on each side of him (<em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>). John’s account in English reads: “They crucified him, and with him two others, on either side one” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>). Karl Delitzsch translated the Greek New Testament into Hebrew, and the Hebrew phrase he chose to use here is identical with that in <em><a href='B:20 17:12'>Exo 17:12</a></em>. Perhaps this explains why John alone of the Gospel writers doesn’t mention that the two men on either side of the Lord were in fact criminals- he calls them “two others” (<em><a href='B:500 19:18'>Joh 19:18</a></em>) and “…the legs of the first and of the other” (<em><a href='B:500 19:32'>Joh 19:32</a></em>). Thus John may’ve chosen to highlight simply how there were two men on either side of the Lord, in order to bring out the connection with the Moses scene. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:10 49:22'>Gen 49:22</a></em> speaks of the Messianic descendant of Joseph as a fruitful vine, with branches. The Lord Jesus seems to have quarried His description of Himself as a vine with branches from this very passage (<em><a href='B:500 15:5'>Joh 15:5</a></em>). Verse 23 continues: "The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: but his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; from thence is the shepherd, the stone (more Messianic allusions here) of Israel". The upholding of Moses' arms is being unmistakably prophesied here; in a Messianic prophecy. The "God of Jacob" in <em><a href='B:10 48:15-16'>Gen 48:15-16</a></em> refers to God manifest in Angels; Jacob there defines his God as "the Angel that redeemed me". There are plenty of other reasons for thinking that "the God of Jacob" is Angelic language. So Messiah's arms were to be upheld with Angelic strength. But we have seen that Christ's uplifted hands on the cross refer to the way in which he was intensely praying at the time. The hymn writer put two and two together and came to the right conclusion: '...and Angels there / sustained the Son of God in prayer'. This was one of the ways in which "God was in Christ" in his sufferings; He gave Him special Angelic encouragement to keep on praying, to keep on asking for help, without forcing Christ in any way to be righteous. Surely in this we get some light on the mystery of the atonement; the mystery of the degree to which the Father helped the Son to overcome without in any way affecting Christ's freewill. It is perhaps significant that there were two men (Aaron and Hur) upholding Moses' arms, in enacted prophecy of how the Angels would strengthen Christ in prayer. Does this point forward to the two Angels especially associated with Christ, Gabriel and Michael? Physically, of course, it was the nails which kept Christ's hands uplifted above his head; yet are we to infer that the Angels even overruled that for a purpose? <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Amalek" appears to be a title like "Pharaoh". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This points forward to God's purpose to obliterate the memory of the "former things" - i.e. Amalek, the things of our moral weakness (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:4'>Rev 21:4</a></em>); note how the "former things" in several Old Testament passages refer to the things of Israel's sad spiritual past. The forgetting of the former things therefore refers to the lack of awareness of the things with which we battled in this life. In the same way as God can 'forget' our sins, so one of the Kingdom joys will be the lack of memory of anything sinful. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh's Name, by contrast, was to be an eternal memory (<em><a href='B:20 3:15'>Exo 3:15</a></em>). He was to be remembered for how He had articulated His Name in how He had historically acted in saving the patriarchs, and He would be remembered for how He was going to act to save His people from Egypt. What was to be memorialized was therefore His actions, rather than simply the letters YHWH. It was His wonderful works which were to be remembered (<em><a href='B:230 111:4'>Psa 111:4</a></em>, s.w. "My memorial"). By contrast, the sinful works and persons of the wicked would not be remembered / memorialized, be they Amalek (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 17:14'>Exo 17:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a></em>), or God's apostate people (s.w. <em><a href='B:50 32:26'>Deu 32:26</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses built an altar, and called its name Yahweh our Banner-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That memorial was physically symbolized by the building of the altar called Jehovah- Nissi. This literally means 'Jehovah is my pole'; this is a word used indirectly in prophecies about the cross of Christ. “There is no God else beside; a just God and a Saviour (Jesus)... look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” (<em><a href='B:290 45:21-22'>Isa 45:21-22</a></em>) is evident allusion to the snake on the pole to which all Israel were bidden look and be saved. And yet that saving symbol of the crucified Jesus is in fact God Himself held up to all men. The other reading "YHWH is my banner" suggests that the raised staff was as a flagpole, but Moses wanted to show that the victory was in Yahweh and not in the rod of itself. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said, Yah has sworn: ‘Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The work of Moses led to the declaration that God will be perpetually at war with Amalek; in prospect, Amalek was destroyed when the sun went down. The same happened with our sinfulness on the cross. In a sense Amalek was destroyed for good, in another sense a long warfare was started; "the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation". Within our natures, as well as in our dealings with the world, we are experiencing this warfare. There is no respite from it. Yet we have this marvellous assurance: God is at war with sin, He is truly on our side in these struggles, these wrestlings with our very natures, which we all go through. This is the comfort as we strive onwards. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, how that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were "brought forth" from Egypt by God; they had been unwilling to leave Egypt, preferring to serve the Egyptians rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>). God had as it were forced through His project of saving Israel by bringing them out of Egypt. And He had done so largely for the sake of Moses, by whose faith the Red Sea parted and they were delivered (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Therefore Yahweh's bringing Israel out of Egypt was what He did for Moses, and only thereby for His people. We too are brought out of this world towards God's Kingdom by His grace alone, with His consistently taking the initiative in our hearts and life circumstances, in accord with the loving intercession of the Lord Jesus (represented by Moses). Thus Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 18:1'>Exo 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:43'>Lev 23:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:55'>Lev 25:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:4'>Num 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:1'>Num 33:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>; ), but Moses did (<em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, received Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her away,-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses "sent / put away" his wife- <em><a href='B:20 18:2'>Exo 18:2</a></em> LXX is the same "put away" as in <em><a href='B:530 7:11-13'>1Co 7:11-13</a></em>. Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of Israel's hearts (<em><a href='B:470 19:8'>Mat 19:8</a></em>) and yet he himself appears to have divorced her- for the hardness of his heart? Her anger with him is seen over the circumcision of their sons, the night when she saved him from the Angel who sought to slay him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and her two sons. The name of one son was Gershom, for Moses said, I have lived as a foreigner in a foreign land-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses' children had names which showed some faith, and a recognition he was a stranger in the land where he was living; he lived as a stranger in Midian. Few people live in a country for 40 years without feeling they belong to it. But his mind was in the past, in how God had been good to his father, and how God had saved him from Pharaoh's death threat. He hardly felt Egypt was his homeland, and neither was Midian. Like us, he was set up by God's hand in life experiences to desire "another country", the Kingdom of God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the other was Eliezer, for he said, My father’s God was my help and delivered me from Pharaoh’s sword- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although Moses had little contact with his father, he praises his father's God. Moses was only with his parents in babyhood and maybe very early childhood. They inculcated in him the faith of Yahweh at that early age. They likely died whilst he was still in the court of Pharaoh and looked like an ungrateful child who had gone the way of the world and forgotten his God and his people and their efforts to raise him in the faith. Moses here and in <em><a href='B:20 15:2'>Exo 15:2</a></em> pays tribute to them. What a surprise awaits them in the Kingdom!&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses into the wilderness where he was encamped, at the Mountain of God-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses is described as encamping in the wilderness, when the reference clearly is to all Israel. He, like the Lord Jesus, was clearly the representative of God's people. See on <em><a href='B:20 34:27'>Exo 34:27</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to Moses, I, your father-in-law Jethro, have come to you with your wife, and her two sons with her- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not in chronological sequence. Moses speaks in <em><a href='B:20 18:16'>Exo 18:16</a></em> of how "I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God, and His laws". Those laws were not given at the time of Exodus 18, so the passage there is out of chronological order. For the people only arrived at Horeb ("the mountain of God", <em><a href='B:20 18:5'>Exo 18:5</a></em>) at the time of <em><a href='B:20 19:1-2'>Exo 19:1-2</a></em>. It was only when they left Horeb on the 20th day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year that Moses established the system of judges as Jethro had advised (<em><a href='B:50 1:12-15'>Deu 1:12-15</a></em>). At the time of <em><a href='B:40 10:11'>Num 10:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 10:29'>Num 10:29</a></em>, Moses asks Jethro ("Hobab") to remain with the people as a guide through the desert. I suggest that the events of Exodus 18 should be inserted after <em><a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a></em> and before <em><a href='B:40 10:11'>Num 10:11</a></em>. In this case the argument between Moses, Aaron and Miriam about Zipporah in <em><a href='B:40 12:1'>Num 12:1</a></em> would have occurred after Zipporah had been accepted again by Moses as his wife.<em></em></p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and bowed and kissed him. They asked each other of their welfare, and they came into the tent-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The tent" could refer to the tabernacle, which at that time was effectively Moses' own personal tent. The Septuagint tells us that Moses "pitched his own tent" and called it the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 33:7'>Exo 33:7</a></em> LXX); in which case we can speculate that the Angel as it were lived with Moses in his own tent.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses told his father-in-law all that Yahweh had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the hardships that had come on them on the way, and how Yahweh delivered them- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God "delivered" His people from Egypt and Pharaoh, just as He delivered Moses personally from the sword of Pharaoh (<em><a href='B:20 18:4'>Exo 18:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 18:8'>Exo 18:8</a></em> s.w.). Moses was the representative of his people, they were saved "in" him, and baptized into him (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>). They were apostate idolaters (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>), and were in a way only saved "in" Moses, just as we are saved "in Christ". They were saved really for Moses' sake, for the sake of his faith Egypt had been judged (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>), but with characteristic humility, Moses says that this had all been for their sakes.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which Yahweh had done to Israel, in that He had delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The phrase "delivered out of the hand of the Egyptians" is used three times by Jethro here and in :10. It could be that he sung a little ditty about it, in his evident joy. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jethro said, Blessed be Yahweh, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh; who has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :9. This is the phrase used for how Moses had delivered his wife from the shepherds, perhaps Egyptians related to the shepherd king dynasty. Israel rejected Moses as their deliverer, they failed to see in that dead Egyptian the ability of Moses to save them completely from the life of slavery. And so Moses fled away from them, he came to Gentile, pagan Midian, and rescued a Gentile woman from the persecution of men, married her, and started a new life in the wilderness- to return many years later in the power of&nbsp; the Holy Spirit and redeem Israel when they were in truly desperate straits. All this naturally points ahead to the work of Jesus after Israel failed to respond to his work on the cross. The word used to describe Moses rescuing his future wife from the shepherds is the same used concerning God rescuing Israel from Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 2:19'>Exo 2:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 18:10'>Exo 18:10</a></em>). Thus Moses was manifesting the redemptive work of God when he saved his wife. But the marriage broke up, as it did between God and Israel- but was apparently restored.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all gods because of the thing in which they dealt arrogantly against them-&nbsp; </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This implies Jethro thought Yahweh was only one of many gods. Yet he apparently came to respect Yahweh as the greatest of them all. Likewise over time in the Lord's ministry, and in the whole NT, reference to demons becomes less and less, as His preaching of Truth by example and miracle made the point that these things really don’t exist. Likewise the gods of Egypt were not specifically stated to not exist: but through the miracles at the Exodus, it was evident that Yahweh was unrivalled amongst all such ‘gods’, to the point of showing their non-existence (<em><a href='B:20 15:11'>Exo 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:20 20:3'>Exo 20:3</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God. Aaron came with all of the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law before God- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The usage of the word "God" rather than "Yahweh" could suggest that Jethro still saw Yahweh as one of many gods, although the greatest of them (see on <em><a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a></em>). And yet the elders of Israel ate bread with him "before God", clearly an expression of religious fellowship. They were not at all caught up with the idea of a closed table. They were happy to fellowship with Jethro where he stood, although he didn't ever fully identify with the covenant people, and returned to his own home. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from the morning to the evening- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are hereby given the impression that the people were endlessly arguing with each other. They were not wholly devoted to Yahweh, and this was reflected in their disunity and animosity between each other. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that you do for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning to evening?- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Surely what Jethro suggested had already occurred to Moses. The fact was that he probably didn't consider that there were many who were able to be judges, because they were still idolaters and not familiar with Yahweh's laws.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to his father-in-law, Because the people come to me to inquire of God- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although they were idolaters (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>), they still wanted to have Yahweh's opinion, and sought to prove that they had Him on their side in their disputes with their brethren. This is absolutely imaginable and true to observation of human behaviour when it comes to this kind of thing. "Inquire" is the same word translated "require". The judgment will be the time when God 'requires' of us our behaviour. And yet the Hebrew word is used about our enquiring / searching to God in prayer now (<em><a href='B:10 25:22'>Gen 25:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 18:15'>Exo 18:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:29'>Deu 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 12:5'>Deu 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 22:5'>1Ki 22:5</a></em>), as well as His 'requiring' / searching of us at the last day (<em><a href='B:50 18:19'>Deu 18:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 23:21'>Deu 23:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:23'>Jos 22:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 20:16'>1Sa 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 3:20'>Eze 3:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:6'>Eze 33:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:8'>Eze 33:8</a></em>). There is a mutuality between a man and his God.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they have a matter, they come to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God, and His laws- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :6 that this incident is inserted here out of sequence, and refers to a time after God had given His laws to Moses. Moses had perhaps delayed appointing judges over the people because he was using the ceaseless stream of cases as an opportunity through which he could teach God's law to the people. Jethro's suggestion had surely already occurred to him, but he was doing as he did in order to introduce God's laws to the people. But he accepts Jethro's suggestions because he concluded that perhaps he had for long enough been teaching them personally. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses’ father-in-law said to him, The thing that you do is not good- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As explained on :18, Jethro's advice and statements was not quite as "good" as may appear. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You will surely wear away, both you, and this people that is with you; for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to perform it yourself alone-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses accepts Jethro's advice on the basis that he will "surely wear away"; even though his natural strength never abated (<em><a href='B:50 34:7'>Deu 34:7</a></em>), and God surely would not have asked him to do the impossible. So Jethro is presented as wrong on this point, and perhaps Moses need not have taken his advice. Jethro at this time seems to have seen Yahweh as only one of many gods; he was a pagan priest. He prophesied that if Moses followed his advice, "all this people shall go to their place in peace"(:23)- which they didn't.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Listen now to my voice. I will give you counsel, and God be with you. You represent the people before God-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses like the Lord Jesus did indeed represent the people before God; the basis of their redemption by him was predicated upon him being their representative. When he later offered his eternity as a substitute, that was not accepted. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And bring the causes to God- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>From :22,26, we are to read him as meaning "the more important or difficult cases". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the way in which they must walk, and the work that they must do- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses had been using the various interpersonal difficulties amongst the congregation as an opportunity to teach Yahweh's newly given laws to the common people, on an individual basis. Jethro suggests just teaching them to their elders, and allowing the laws to filter down that way. Moses accepts this, but we wonder whether that was God's ideal intention. We may compare this with the way that God wanted to speak His words to all the people, but they backed away from Him, wanting Moses to tell them what God had said. So we see the theme continued here, of the ordinary people being increasingly isolated from the direct engagement with God's word which He ideally wished. And this is a theme which has continued amongst God's people to this day. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moreover you shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God: men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If indeed 600,000 men left Egypt (although see on <em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>), this would have meant at the very least 600 rulers of thousands, 6000 rulers of hundreds, 12,000 rulers of fifties and 60,000 rulers of tens; making in the whole 78,600 officers. Were there really such a huge number of men of integrity in the congregation? All the evidence is that there were not. This again leads us to consider that Jethro's advice had secular common sense to it, but was not God's ideal desire. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let them judge the people at all times. It shall be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they shall judge themselves. So shall it be easier for you, and they shall share the load with you-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The load" of God's people was carried by Moses; yet it had been carried by Yahweh; for He was the One who had carried Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 19:4'>Exo 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 46:3'>Isa 46:3</a></em>). Moses was carrying the people too, through patiently bearing with their petty squabbles and trying to help them see through them by wise judgment. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But in <em><a href='B:40 11:14'>Num 11:14</a></em> Moses laments: "I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me". This complaint of Moses had supposedly been answered by Jethro's suggestion to appoint elders "to share the load with you" (<em><a href='B:20 18:22'>Exo 18:22</a></em>); and I suggested that Exodus 18 is out of chronological sequence, and should be inserted between <em><a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 10:11'>Num 10:11</a></em> (see note there, and on <em><a href='B:20 18:6'>Exo 18:6</a></em>). So in reality, Jethro's secular advice hadn't worked.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you will do this thing, and God commands you so, then you will be able to endure, and all of these people also will go to their place in peace-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Jethro perceived the vital personal role of Moses in Israel’s salvation; if Moses 'endured', then he would bring the people to Canaan. This is the power of just one man's faith, and indeed so much in Israel's salvation was predicated upon Moses' faith (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). But "these people" did not come in peace to their place of inheritance; that generation perished in the wilderness. Jethro's advice didn't really work. See on :18.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Moses listened to the voice of his father-in-law, and did all that he had said- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :18, not all that Jethro said was true, nor was it true that his plan would succeed in bringing Israel to their inheritance in peace. It didn't. So we wonder whether Moses was correct in just accepting his advice; perhaps he did it in order to achieve reconciliation with his wife, Jethro's daughter. Even Jethro advised that his suggestions should only be accepted if "and God commands you so" (:23). There is no statement to the effect that Moses did await God's commands, and there were various problems with the entire suggestion, as noted in this section.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There is no evidence that this system really worked. However we do read the same word translated "ruler" used of the "captains" of <em><a href='B:50 1:15'>Deu 1:15</a></em>; and whenever we later read of "rulers / captains of thousands", it refers to captains of military divisions (<em><a href='B:90 8:12'>1Sa 8:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 1:9'>2Ki 1:9</a></em>). So it could be that this system was used not for judgment but for military organization. Again we see that Jethro's secular advice, much as it made good common sense, was not really God's way- and it didn't work. <em>&nbsp;</em><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They judged the people at all times. They brought the hard causes to Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Here we have another example of how the record of Israel at this time is very positive about them. For as noted throughout this section, the vision of Jethro didn't really work well in practice. But in His love, God saw no iniquity in Israel, He saw them as the wonderful, attractive young women whom He fell in love with in the desert. And the Divinely inspired record reflects that. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way into his own land-</em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note from <em><a href='B:130 23:15-17'>1Ch 23:15-17</a></em> that there were descendants of Moses through Gerhsom and Eliezer in Israel at David's time, who could demonstrate their pedigree. They were given designated roles of service within David's plans for the new temple system; which is why they are mentioned in 1 Chronicles 23. So we can deduce from this that they did not remain in Midian but identified themselves with Israel. In <em><a href='B:40 10:29'>Num 10:29</a></em> we read that Jethro turned down Moses' invitation to remain with Israel and be their guide in the desert. But <em><a href='B:20 18:27'>Exo 18:27</a></em> says that "Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way into his own land". Here we have another example of where we need to put the scriptures together in order to get a full picture of what really happened. Perhaps the Biblical narrative is constructed in this way so that we must indeed read and meditate upon it all, respecting it all as God's word, in order to more fully see the entire narrative as God wishes us to.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt- </em><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Gone out" is s.w. "brought forth". Israel were "brought forth" from Egypt by God; they had been unwilling to leave Egypt, preferring to serve the Egyptians rather than Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 14:12'>Exo 14:12</a></em>). God had as it were forced through His project of saving Israel by bringing them out of Egypt. And He had done so largely for the sake of Moses, by whose faith the Red Sea parted and they were delivered (<em><a href='B:650 11:28-29'>Heb 11:28-29</a></em>). Therefore Yahweh's bringing Israel out of Egypt was what He did for Moses, and only thereby for His people. We too are brought out of this world towards God's Kingdom by His grace alone, with His consistently taking the initiative in our hearts and life circumstances, in accord with the loving intercession of the Lord Jesus (represented by Moses). Thus Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 18:1'>Exo 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:1'>Exo 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 23:43'>Lev 23:43</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 25:55'>Lev 25:55</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 26:4'>Num 26:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:1'>Num 33:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 33:38'>Num 33:38</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:45-46'>Deu 4:45-46</a></em>), but Moses did (<em><a href='B:20 3:10-11'>Exo 3:10-11</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On that same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are various options in understanding "that same day". It could mean the same day of the month, the 15th, in which they had departed from Egypt. Or it might mean the same day of the same month, i.e. the 3rd day of the 3rd month. Or we could follow the Jewish view that the phrase implies "the first day of the month". This would mean it was 45 days after leaving Egypt, on the fifteenth day of the first month. On the next day, Moses went up to the mountain, and then the people are given three days to sanctify themselves. The day after that, the glory of God appeared. This would have been fifty days after Passover, the day which was to be called the day of Pentecost. And thus the Jewish tradition is confirmed- that the law was given on the day of Pentecost.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When they had departed from Rephidim, and had come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are intended to connect this with how they had arrived in Rephidim and rebelled (<em><a href='B:20 17:1'>Exo 17:1</a></em>). They moved on from there apparently repentant, and now encamp before Yahweh in the mountain. The impression is of a repentant people, now suitably humble to receive God's law. At least that is the idealized picture given. For God fell in love with Israel in the wilderness and spread His skirt over them at Sinai, accepting them as His wife, despite all their idolatry and weakness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went up to God, and Yahweh called to him out of the mountain, saying, This is what you shall tell the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way they were the descendants of the historical Jacob is stressed, as is his name change from Jacob to Israel. They were being reminded that Jacob too had been so weak, as they were. And yet he had been accepted and transformed by God's grace. And this was God's hope for them too. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on <em><a href='B:40 11:12'>Num 11:12</a></em>, where Moses later doubts these words . God wants us to be independent, as good parents wish for their children; He wants us to serve Him on our initiative and not merely obey a set of legal codes. Thus He carries us an eagle teaching its young to fly, pushing them out of the nest, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them (<em><a href='B:20 19:4'>Exo 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 17:8'>Psa 17:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 57:1'>Psa 57:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 61:4'>Psa 61:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 63:7'>Psa 63:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 91:4'>Psa 91:4</a></em>). The pushing out of the nest in Israel's context refers to their leaving Egypt (cp. baptism for us); and throughout the wilderness journey the Father was teaching them to fly independently. But does God know in advance every failure we will commit? It seems to me that He doesn't, for in our efforts to 'learn to fly', we have freewill- the whole enterprise could go this way, or that, or the other.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"The load" of God's people was carried by Moses (<em><a href='B:20 18:22'>Exo 18:22</a></em>); yet it had been carried by Yahweh; for He was the One who had carried Israel out of Egypt and through the desert (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 19:4'>Exo 19:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 46:3'>Isa 46:3</a></em>). Moses was carrying the people too, through patiently bearing with their petty squabbles and trying to help them see through them by wise judgment. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And brought you to Myself-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel's passing through the Red Sea was an undoubted type of baptism and the new creation&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em>). God brought them out of Egypt, through the Red Sea baptism, "and brought you unto myself" (<em><a href='B:20 19:4'>Exo 19:4</a></em>). It was as if God was waiting for them there, in the wilderness; as He waits to receive every man or woman who passes through the waters of baptism. Time and again they were bidden look back to their exodus/ Red Sea experience. In times of dire spiritual failure or sluggish indifference to their God, as well as at their pinnacles of faith, the Spirit in the prophets directed their minds back to these things- either by explicit statement, or by indirect allusion. We too, as the baptized new Israel, ought to likewise look back to our baptism with an ever-increasing appreciation.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Literally, 'I will take you unto Myself as a people', as in <em><a href='B:20 6:7'>Exo 6:7</a></em>. This is similar to the formulae used for adoption of children into a family. This could continue the family allusion of :6, where we read that God would redeem / act as a family redeemer, a <em>ga'al</em>, for His people. The idea may not be that they became His people at the point of the exodus, but rather that He took them to Himself "as a people", they received a collective redemption, not one of them was left behind, not even the most faithless. But the collective nature of Yahweh's salvation, in our times seen in Jesus, Yehoshua, Yah's salvation, must be responded to on an individual level.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now therefore- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel were to be a Kingdom of priests exactly because "You have seen what I did... how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself" (<em><a href='B:20 19:4-6'>Exo 19:4-6</a></em>). The redemption which we have personally experienced must be the motivation to rise up to this challenge. The spirit of priesthood should therefore be seen in each of us. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you will indeed obey My voice, and keep My covenant, then you shall be My very own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine;-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are to live out in practice what we have been made in status by our gracious Father. The very fact He counts us as in Christ, as the spotless bride of His Son, must be both felt and lived up to by us. The way He counts us like this is a wonderful motivation to rise up to it all. Consider how God told Israel that <em>if</em> they kept His commandments, <em>then</em> they would be His “peculiar treasure” (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>). This conditional promise is then referred to by Moses as having been fulfilled- Israel became His “peculiar treasure” by status even though they did <em>not</em> keep His commandments (<em><a href='B:50 7:6'>Deu 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 14:2'>Deu 14:2</a></em> s.w.; <em><a href='B:230 135:4'>Psa 135:4</a></em>). Moses concludes by saying that “the Lord has avouched you this day to be His peculiar people (s.w.)…<em> that</em> you should keep all His commandments” (<em><a href='B:50 26:18'>Deu 26:18</a></em>). See what’s happening here. God said that <em>if</em> they were obedient, <em>then</em> they would be His special people. Yet He counted them as His special people even though they were not obedient. And He did this so that they would be so touched by this grace that they <em>would</em> be obedient. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew word for ‘hear’ is also translated ‘obey’ (<em><a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:8'>Deu 30:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 95:7'>Psa 95:7</a></em>). We can hear God’s word and not obey it. But if we really hear it as we are intended to, we will obey it. If we truly believe God’s word to be His voice personally speaking to us, then we will by the very fact of hearing, obey. The message itself, if heard properly and not just on a surface level, will compel action. We can delight to know God’s laws and pray daily to Him, when at the same time we are forsaking Him and His laws; if we are truly obedient, then we will delight in God’s law (<em><a href='B:290 58:2'>Isa 58:2</a></em> cp. 14). We have a tendency to have a love of and delight in God’s law only on the surface. John especially often uses ‘hearing’ to mean ‘believing’ (e.g. <em><a href='B:500 10:4'>Joh 10:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 10:26-27'>Joh 10:26-27</a></em>). And yet the Jews ‘heard’ but didn’t believe. We must, we really must ask ourselves: whether we merely hear, or hear and believe. For we can hear, but not really hear. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God saw no iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). He fulfilled His promise here at Sinai that if they were obedient, He would make them His people; and He did, counting them as obedient. Yet the events of the intervening forty years hardly sound like Israel being obedient; He "suffered their manners" forty years (<em><a href='B:230 95:10'>Psa 95:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:18'>Act 13:18</a></em>). And yet at the end of that period, they were counted as having been sufficiently obedient to be made God’s people (<em><a href='B:20 19:5'>Exo 19:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:50 27:9'>Deu 27:9</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation’. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God intended Israel to be "a Kingdom of priests" (<em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em>). “All the people of Israel” were the builders of the spiritual house of God, i.e. His people (<em><a href='B:510 4:10-11'>Act 4:10-11</a></em>). It was God's intention that there should be no specialist priests. It was everyone's job, to teach their neighbour and family God's word. But His plans were ammended as their general failure became apparent, and the Levites were chosen. But His ideal intention remained. Thus when Israel were rejected, they were told that they as a nation could no longer be God’s priest (<em><a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a></em>). By baptism, we become spiritual Israel; and this idea is relevant to us too. Peter picks up these words in Exodus and applies them to every one of us, for the new covenant returns to this original intention of the old covenant: "You also are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices" (<em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:9'>1Pe 2:9</a></em>, quoting <em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em> LXX). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As it was God’s intention that Israel were to be a nation of priests to the rest of the world, so the new Israel likewise are to <em>all</em> discharge the priestly functions of teaching their brethren (<em><a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:1:6'>Rev 1:6</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:9-10'>Rev 5:9-10</a></em>). Under the new covenant, we should <em>all </em>teach and admonish one another (<em><a href='B:580 3:16'>Col 3:16</a></em>). Indeed, God told Israel (unrecorded in the historical records): “Ye are gods (<em>elohim</em>) and all of you are sons of the Most High” (<em><a href='B:230 82:6'>Psa 82:6</a></em> RV). Further, <em><a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a></em> makes the paradigm breaking statement that even the Gentiles could come before Yahweh of Israel in holy, priestly array- they too could aspire to the spirit of priesthood (<em><a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a></em> RVmg.). Moses spoke of how all Israel should pray that God would establish the work of their hands (<em><a href='B:230 90:17'>Psa 90:17</a></em>)- but this was in fact his special request for the blessing of Levi, the priestly tribe (<em><a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a></em>). <em><a href='B:230 135:19-20'>Psa 135:19-20</a></em> parallels all Israel with the priestly family: “Bless the Lord, O house of Israel: bless the Lord, O house of Aaron: bless the Lord, O house of Levi: ye that fear the Lord, bless the Lord...praise <em>ye </em>the Lord”. All Israel were to aspire to the spirit of priesthood. Indeed, the Psalms often parallel the house of Aaron (i.e. the priesthood) with the whole nation (<em><a href='B:230 115:9-10'>Psa 115:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 115:12'>Psa 115:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 118:2-3'>Psa 118:2-3</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "Kingdom of God" is not only a future political entity to be established on earth; the term refers also to whatever God has Kingship over now. A Kingdom is essentially a people. God's people are His Kingdom, here and now. By entry into the body of Christ by baptism, we are like Israel being declared as God's Kingdom on earth (<em><a href='B:20 19:5-6'>Exo 19:5-6</a></em>) after their Red Sea 'baptism'. Life in (the body of) Christ now, the Kingdom life now (as the Lord speaks of it in Matthew 5-7), the life to be eternally experienced in the future manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth... it's all about life in a community. It's not about splendid isolation now, because it won't be about that in the eternal future either. &nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which Yahweh commanded him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"All these words" were the invitation to be God's priestly kingdom. The first simple step in relationship with God is to say "Yes" to that general invitation. And then the details follow, but it seems God saw their initial agreement as so significant. There is some parallel in the way that the very simple gospel of the resurrected Lord Jesus is to be taught, accepted in baptism, and then after that, those who have accepted it are to be taught "to observe all things whatever I have commanded" (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). See on :11.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the people answered together, and said, All that Yahweh has spoken we will do. Moses reported the words of the people to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Answered together" could imply that they spoke these words in unison, at the same time. God of course heard those words, but Moses "reported the words" as if this was required in order for the proposed covenant to be formally ratified. See on :19.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever. Moses told the words of the people to Yahweh- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angel told Moses that the people would hear him, "and believe you for ever". But this was only true potentially, as are many such statements. For things turned out the opposite. At this time, God saw no iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>), He was the young man in love with the girl called Israel whom He had met in the desert. And so the record reads very positively about them. See on :21.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Go to the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This command to sanctify themselves suggests separation from something. And surely the idea was that they were to repent of their idolatry and ditch the idols of Egypt which they had taken with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). There is no evidence they did so, for they carried the tabernacles of other gods through the desert, along with Yahweh's (<em><a href='B:510 7:43'>Act 7:43</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and be ready against the third day; for on the third day Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people on Mount Sinai- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Be ready" is the phrase used in the covenant to David, rendered "be established... be confirmed" (<em><a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 7:24'>2Sa 7:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 7:26'>2Sa 7:26</a></em>). Their readiness or preparedness, basically their willingness, was to be the qualification for entering the covenant. See on :7. In one sense, all we have to do is say yes. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall set bounds to the people all around, saying, ‘Be careful that you don’t go up onto the mountain, or touch its border. Whoever touches the mountain shall be surely put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses apparently obeyed this (:23), although there is no record of his doing so. The Hebrew for "bounds" is literally to tie a rope; it was but a rope. The boundary therefore made the mountain holy / sanctified (:23). They were not to touch the holiness of Yahweh, whereas later whatever touched holy things was made holy (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 29:37'>Exo 29:37</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:29'>Exo 30:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:18'>Lev 6:18</a></em>). The implication could be that God knew that in reality, they were not a sanctified / holy people. He had asked them to make themselves holy by rejecting their idols, but they had not done so (:10). And so they were warned not to touch the holy mountain, or else they would die for having defiled God's holiness by their unholiness.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it is animal or man, he shall not live’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commentary of <em><a href='B:650 12:20'>Heb 12:20</a></em>&nbsp;is that "They could not endure (s.w. "uphold") that which was commanded- If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned". The argument in the context seems to be that Israel were disobedient even to the peripheral command not to touch the mountain; let alone to the actual content of the covenant. Although they disobeyed, there is no record of their being slain. Their curiosity overcame any respect they may have had for God's law, and thus they repeated in essence the sin of Adam and Eve in touching and taking the forbidden fruit. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the trumpet sounds long, they shall come up to the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>LXX "when the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain<em>".</em> But this didn't happen- see on :14. They were not sufficiently sanctified; see on :10. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I suggested on :10 that this command to sanctify themselves suggests separation from something. And surely the idea was that they were to repent of their idolatry and ditch the idols of Egypt which they had taken with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:8'>Eze 20:8</a></em>). But Moses sanctified them in a ritual sense. But I have argued on :10 that they were not in fact sufficiently holy, and therefore they did not ascend the mountain as originally planned (:13).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He said to the people, Be ready by the third day. Don’t have sexual relations with a woman- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had three days to sanctify themselves, and I suggested on :10 that this meant throwing away their idols and being sanctified to Yahweh alone. But as noted on :14, they merely went through external rituals of sanctification, and thought that washing their clothes and abstaining from sex for three days would make them sanctified. It didn't. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>It happened on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain, and the sound of an exceedingly loud trumpet; and all the people who were in the camp trembled- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Thunders" is LXX "voices"; the thunders were to be understood as the great voice of God. And then according to <em><a href='B:20 19:13'>Exo 19:13</a></em> LXX "when the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain". But this didn't happen- see on :14. They were not sufficiently sanctified; see on :10. Moses himself trembled (<em><a href='B:650 12:21'>Heb 12:21</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the lower part of the mountain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea was as in :13 LXX "when the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain<em>".</em> But this didn't happen- see on :14. They were not sufficiently sanctified; see on :10. Instead of all of them ascending the mountain, only Moses was invited to ascend (:20). This was a departure from the initial intention. And when he got to the top, he was simply told to go down and ensure the people didn't break through the cordon and come up the mountain as originally planned. Some of them had already touched the mountain; for the commentary of <em><a href='B:650 12:20'>Heb 12:20</a></em>&nbsp;is that "They could not endure (s.w. "uphold") that which was commanded- If even a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned". The argument in the context seems to be that Israel were disobedient even to the peripheral command not to touch the mountain. The whole narrative is the story of an intimacy with God which didn't come about as potentially possible. And that is the sad story of so much of the Divine-human encounter.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Mount Sinai, all of it, smoked, because Yahweh descended on it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reference to fire, smoke, furnace, earthquake and the descent of Yahweh is very similar to the language of Divine judgment, especially of Sodom (<em><a href='B:10 19:28'>Gen 19:28</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:9:2'>Rev 9:2</a></em>). And we know from the prophets that Israel were considered by God as Sodom. We could read this as His wrath with Israel for breaking His simple commandments about not touching the mountain, and for not having sufficiently sanctified themselves (see on :10,14,18). The argument of Hebrews 12 appears to be that the scene here is one of condemnation of sinful man- and we have not been called to that, but to salvation by grace in the new covenant in Christ. But this condemnation wasn't the original intention; which had been rather that all Israel would ascend Sinai and meet God (:13). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>When the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What did Moses speak? Presumably the words of :7,8, whereby the people had agreed to enter covenant with Yahweh. The response was that Moses alone, and not the people as originally planned (see on :13), was invited up to God. And was simply told to return to the people, with no covenant, but rather a repeated message not to touch the mountain in their unclean state (see on :10,14,15).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain. Yahweh called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :19. Wherever an ordinary Israelite offered sacrifice, “I will come unto thee (‘you’ singular) and bless thee” (<em><a href='B:20 20:23'>Exo 20:23</a></em> AV). This is the very language of God coming unto Moses on the top of Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em> RV)- as if to imply that the very pinnacle of Moses’ relationship with God, meeting Him on the top of the mount, is just as attainable for each of God’s people who truly sacrifices to Him.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God Himself is spoken of as coming, descending etc. when He ‘preaches’ to humanity (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 11:25'>Num 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 22:10'>2Sa 22:10</a></em>). In <em><a href='B:300 39:16'>Jer 39:16</a></em>, the imprisoned Jeremiah is told to "go, tell Ebed-melech..." a word from the Lord about him. Jeremiah couldn't have literally left prison to do so- but the idea is that a person encountering the Lord's word has as it were experienced the Lord 'going' to him or her. And in this sense the message of the Lord Jesus (in its essence) could 'go' to persons without Him physically going anywhere or even existing consciously at the time (<em><a href='B:670 3:18-21'>1Pe 3:18-21</a></em>).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, Go down, warn the people, lest they break through to Yahweh to gaze, and many of them perish-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We eagerly await the words of Yahweh to Moses. The narrative sets us up to expect some profound revelation; but Moses is told simply to go all the way back down the mountain and warn the people of their tendency to disobedience. <em><a href='B:650 12:20'>Heb 12:20</a></em> says the people had touched the mountain, and they were not sufficiently sanctified. See on :10,14,15. They had religious curiosity, they wanted to gaze upon God- but not to personally sanctify themselves in order to enter true relationship with Him. And that is so true of people today. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way Moses in Deuteronomy sees Israel as far more righteous than they were reflects the way the Lord imputes righteousness to us. He says that Israel didn't go near the mountain because they were afraid of the fire (<em><a href='B:50 5:5'>Deu 5:5</a></em>), whereas <em><a href='B:20 19:21-24'>Exo 19:21-24</a></em> teaches that Israel at that time were not so afraid of the fire, and were quite inclined to break through the dividing fence and gaze in unspiritual fascination at a theophany which was beyond them. See on <em><a href='B:50 13:6'>Deu 13:6</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let the priests also, who come near to Yahweh, sanctify themselves, lest Yahweh break forth on them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Clearly there were some priests before Aaron and his sons were consecrated. So many elements of the Mosaic law were in operation before it was given, so that some of it was really just a codification of existing concepts. But it was God's intention that all His people be priests, and under the new covenant, this priestly language of coming / drawing near to God is applied to all believers (<em><a href='B:650 7:19'>Heb 7:19</a></em>). Indeed it is through having the sure hope of the Kingdom that we are inspired to "draw near to God" in such priestly service. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to Yahweh, The people can’t come up to Mount Sinai, for you warned us, saying, ‘Set bounds around the mountain, and sanctify it’-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses over-estimated their obedience, so much did he love them. Unknown to him at the time, they had touched the mountain and had broken the command not to touch it (<em><a href='B:650 12:20'>Heb 12:20</a></em>). And as explained on :10,13,14, they were not sufficiently sanctified before God. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to him, Go down and you shall bring Aaron up with you, but don’t let the priests and the people break through to come up to Yahweh, lest He break forth on them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had religious curiosity, they wanted to gaze upon God- but not to personally sanctify themselves in order to enter true relationship with Him. And that is so true of people today. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If Israel broke through to gaze, Yahweh would break through upon them (<em><a href='B:20 19:24'>Exo 19:24</a></em>); their punishment would be appropriate to their sin. Under the Law, every sin received an appropriate judgment, and this anticipates the final meting out of punishment at the last day (<em><a href='B:650 2:2-3'>Heb 2:2-3</a></em>). Because Israel said "No; for we will flee upon horses (and not need Yahweh's protection); therefore shall you flee (in the condemnation process): and, We will ride upon the swift; therefore shall they that pursue you be swift" (<em><a href='B:290 30:16'>Isa 30:16</a></em>). Because Israel thought they could flee God's judgments on swift horses, therefore their judgment came to them on swift horses. Adam and Eve were punished in ways appropriate to their individual failures. The lazy servant was punished out of his own mouth (<em><a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a></em>); and even in Job's time, this principle of Divine condemnation was known (<em><a href='B:220 9:20'>Job 9:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 15:6'>Job 15:6</a></em>). The Judaizers too were to have an "end (that) will correspond to their deeds" (<em><a href='B:540 11:14-15'>2Co 11:14-15</a></em> RSV). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>So Moses went down to the people, and told them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are left to imagine him making the long journey back to the people, without having received the covenant as expected. He had merely been told to ensure the people didn't break through and touch the holy mountain. He would have realized on the climb down that they must have sinned. Something had gone wrong, and they had not in fact been invited up the mountain as initially planned (:13).<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God spoke all these words, saying,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The ten commandments are unique amongst the legal codes of ancient peoples, in that they speak of Divine commands given to individuals- AV "thou", you singular, shall do this, or not do that. God shows in this crucial covenant statement that He wished for personal obedience from every one of His people, not just certain sacrifices offered by representatives of the tribe. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language echoes that of God to Abraham: "I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur" (<em><a href='B:10 15:7'>Gen 15:7</a></em>). They were being asked to act as Abraham's seed, and respond as He did to the Divine initiative in separating them from the world- by following His commandments. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Whenever God speaks about His Name, it is in the context of His emphasizing His huge commitment to Israel as His people, often in the face of their weakness (<em><a href='B:20 12:12'>Exo 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 15:26'>Exo 15:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:2'>Exo 20:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:5-6'>Eze 20:5-6</a></em>). The very meaning of God's Name is of itself encouraging- although it is somewhat masked in English translations. God 'is' not just in the sense that He exists, but in that He 'is' there with and for us. The verb behind 'YHWH' was "originally causative", i.e. God not only 'is' but He causes things to happen. We aren't to understand Him as passive, just a stone cold Name... but rather passionately active and causative in our sometimes apparently static and repetitive lives.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall have no other gods before Me- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Before Me" can mean that Yahweh is to be the most honoured of all gods. This could suggest a tolerance of having other gods, but in the hope that Yahweh's supremacy would become so obvious that faith in the other gods would fade away. This was the attitude taken by the Lord Jesus in His tolerance of belief in demons, which were also false gods and connected with idols. But "before Me" can also mean 'in My presence'. To come into Yahweh's presence with any idol... would be unthinkable. See on <em><a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:-</em></p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>“Likeness” is used in the LXX in the frequent warnings not to make an image or likeness of any god, let alone Yahweh (<em><a href='B:20 20:4'>Exo 20:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:16-25'>Deu 4:16-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:20'>Psa 106:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:18-19'>Isa 40:18-19</a></em>). The reason for this prohibition becomes clearer in the New Testament; the ultimate likeness of God is in His Son, and we are to create the likeness of His Son not as a mere physical icon, but within the very structure of our human personality and character.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate Me,-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The prophets were up against the same passionless spirit that pervades our societies today. “The Lord thy God (is) a jealous God” (<em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>) was changed in the Targums to “I am a God above jealousy” (<em>Mechilta</em>). The prophets speak so often of God’s wrath, love, hurt, pain, passion, anger, pathos… And they speak too of the terrible “repentings”, the kindling of contradictory impulses, which there apparently is in the mind of God. But jealousy is a lead feature within Yahweh's personality (<em><a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 34:14'>Exo 34:14</a></em>). It speaks specifically of the jealousy of a man concerning the faithfulness of his wife (<em><a href='B:40 5:14'>Num 5:14</a></em>). God was the passionate lover and husband of His people, and it is inevitable therefore that the extent of that love would produce jealousy when they spurned Him and went after other men, the idols.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love Me and keep my commandments- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God is His word (<em><a href='B:500 1:1'>Joh 1:1</a></em>); to love God is to love His word. If we love Christ, we will keep His words (<em><a href='B:500 14:15'>Joh 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 14:21'>Joh 14:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:10'>Joh 15:10</a></em>). This is evidently alluding to the many Old Testament passages which say that Israel's love for God would be shown through their keeping of His commands (<em><a href='B:20 20:6'>Exo 20:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:10'>Deu 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 7:9'>Deu 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:1'>Deu 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:22'>Deu 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a></em>). Israel were also told that God's commands were all related to showing love (<em><a href='B:50 11:13'>Deu 11:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 19:9'>Deu 19:9</a></em>). So there is a logical circuit here: We love God by keeping His commands, the essence of which is love of people, therefore His commands are fundamentally about love. Thus love is the fulfilling of the law of God; both under the Old and New covenants (<em><a href='B:520 13:10'>Rom 13:10</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One reference of this is to the idea of a wife taking her husband's name; just as we do when we call the Name upon ourselves in baptism (<em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 22:16'>Act 22:16</a></em>). The Hebrew for "take" is also translated "marry" or "accept". Perhaps <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em> alludes to the idea in urging us not to "accept" or 'take' God's grace (the essence of His Name) "in vain". The vulnerability and sensitivity of God is reflected in the way that He is concerned that His covenant people, His wife, who bears His Name, might profane His Name (<em><a href='B:30 19:12'>Lev 19:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:7'>Exo 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:11'>Deu 5:11</a></em>). His repeated concern that His Name be taken in vain doesn't simply refer to the casual use of the word "God" as an expression of exasperation. God is concerned about His people taking His Name upon themselves (<em><a href='B:40 6:27'>Num 6:27</a></em>) in vain- i.e., marrying Him, entering covenant relationship with Him, taking on His Name- but not being serious about that relationship, taking it on as a vain thing, like a woman who casually marries a man who loves her at the very core of his being, when for her, it's just a casual thing and she lives a profligate and adulterous life as his wife. When God revealed His Name to His people, opening up the very essence of His character to them, He was making Himself vulnerable. We reveal ourselves intimately to another because we wish for them to make a response to us, to love us for what we revealed to them. God revealed Himself to Israel, He sought for intimacy in the covenant relationship, and therefore was and is all the more hurt when His people turn away from Him, after having revealed to them all the wonders of His word (<em><a href='B:350 8:12'>Hos 8:12</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the idea of not taking Yahweh's Name "in vain", 'vanity', is often associated with idolatry. Israel never formerly rejected Yahweh, and never became atheists. They mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry on the basis that they claimed that they worshipped Yahweh through worshipping the idols. This is what emboldened them to later place idols in Yahweh's temple. They were taking Yahweh's Name as a form of vanity, "in vain", a kind of idol. Thus their relationship with Yahweh was not to be a "vain thing" (<em><a href='B:50 32:47'>Deu 32:47</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Guiltless" is a term which can mean "clear of responsibility to covenant relationship' (<em><a href='B:10 24:8'>Gen 24:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 24:41'>Gen 24:41</a></em>). God would not overlook the fact they were in covenant with Him and had taken His Name upon them, just as we take His Name upon us in baptism. And we are therefore not guiltless or clear of responsibility to Him.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Remember" could mean 'celebrate', but that seems axiomatic. More likely the idea is that the Sabbath was established from creation onwards, and Israel were being bidden "remember" that. We note that the Sabbath was one of the ten commandments But &nbsp;the Sabbath was specifically "a sign between them (Israel) and Me (God), that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them" (<em><a href='B:330 20:12'>Eze 20:12</a></em>).&nbsp;As such, it has never been intended to be binding on Gentiles (non-Jews). “... the Lord has given <em>you</em> (not all mankind) the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 16:29'>Exo 16:29</a></em>); “... You (God) made known to them (Israel) Your holy Sabbath” (<em><a href='B:160 9:14'>Neh 9:14</a></em>). The Old Covenant refers to the Law of Moses, which was replaced on the cross by the New Covenant.&nbsp;The ten commandments, including that concerning the Sabbath, were part of the Old Covenant which was done away by Christ. God "declared to you (Israel) His covenant which he commanded you (Israel) to perform, that is the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone" (<em><a href='B:50 4:13'>Deu 4:13</a></em>).&nbsp;God "wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (<em><a href='B:20 34:28'>Exo 34:28</a></em>). If we argue that keeping the covenant made in the ten commandments is necessary, we must also observe every detail of the entire Law, seeing that this is all part of the same covenant.&nbsp;It is evidently impossible to do this. “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb ... the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord” (<em><a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:21'>1Ki 8:21</a></em>). Those tablets, on which were the ten commandments, were the covenant. <em><a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a></em> speaks of "the tablets of the covenant".&nbsp;The ten commandments were written on the tablets of stone, which comprised "the (old) covenant". Paul refers to this covenant as "written and engraved on&nbsp;stones", i.e. on the tablets of stone.&nbsp;He calls it "the ministry of death... the ministry of condemnation...” that which is “... passing away" (<em><a href='B:540 3:7-11'>2Co 3:7-11</a></em>).&nbsp;<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>However, nine of the ten commandments have been reaffirmed, in spirit at least, in the New Testament: 1st. - <em><a href='B:560 4:6'>Eph 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 5:21'>1Jn 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 4:10'>Mat 4:10</a></em>; Matthew ; Second - <em><a href='B:530 10:14'>1Co 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:25'>Rom 1:25</a></em>; Romans Third - <em><a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Mat 5:34-35</a></em>; Fifth - <em><a href='B:560 6:1-2'>Eph 6:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:20'>Col 3:20</a></em>; Sixth - <em><a href='B:690 3:15'>1Jn 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:21'>Mat 5:21</a></em>; Matthew Seventh - <em><a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 5:27-28'>Mat 5:27-28</a></em>; Matthew Eighth - <em><a href='B:520 2:21'>Rom 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:28'>Eph 4:28</a></em>; Ninth - <em><a href='B:580 3:9'>Col 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:25'>Eph 4:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 3:3'>2Ti 3:3</a></em>; Tenth. - <em><a href='B:560 5:3'>Eph 5:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:5'>Col 3:5</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 can be found in 1 Timothy 1 alone, and Numbers 1, 2, 10 in 1 Corinthians 5. But never is the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath repeated in the New Testament as obligatory for us.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall labour six days, and do all your work- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea is that man's week of labour is to reflect God's six days of labour during the creation week (:11). This parallel empowers us to see the grind of daily work as ultimately creative, and not mere vanity. The daily work which was part of the curse in Eden now becomes creative- if done "as unto the Lord". But we could also consider "you shall labour" to be a command to work, rather than laze around and by all means seek to avoid the results of the curse. Rather we are to see in the six days of labour an opportunity to reflect God's creative work; to use our labour to create, rather than to merely exist. This lifts the curse of labour so far above what it otherwise is.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your livestock, nor your stranger who is within your gates- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus invites those who follow Him to accept the “rest” which He gives (<em><a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a></em>), using the word which is used in the Septuagint for the Sabbath rest. Jesus was offering a life of Sabbath, of rest from trust in our own works (cp. <em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:10'>Heb 4:10</a></em>). We shouldn’t, therefore, keep a Sabbath one day per week, but rather live our whole lives in the spirit of the Sabbath. Just as we are to live the "eternal life" now, the type of life we will eternally live in the Kingdom is to be lived and experienced now. In this sense, as Hebrews makes clear, we "have entered into rest", and yet in another sense we labour now to enter into that rest at the Lord's return. This is a classic case of the "now but not yet" theme of the Bible.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Yahweh <em>blessed</em> the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a></em>). Work was not to be done so as to rest and remember God's creative grace, His salvation of man without works; whereas in pagan thought, work wasn't done because 'Sabbath' was an unlucky day on which it was best to do as little as possible in case some 'Satan' figure struck. Such belief was being deconstructed in the Sabbath law. The Mosaic 10 Commandments included the unique commandment not to covet / lust. This was unknown in any Mesopotamian legal code- because obviously it's impossible to know what a person is thinking within themselves, and so impossible to judge or punish it. But God's law introduced the whole idea that sin / transgression of law is ultimately internal, and this will be judged by the one true God. See on <em><a href='B:20 35:3'>Exo 35:3</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Israelite Sabbath was instituted, it seems, in antithesis to the Mesopotamian system. Thus most pagan festivals of the time were begun by the lighting of a candle in the home; but a candle was not to be kindled on the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 35:3'>Exo 35:3</a></em>). Yahweh <em>blessed</em> the Sabbath (<em><a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a></em>). Work was not to be done so as to rest and remember God's creative grace; whereas in pagan thought, work wasn't done because 'Sabbath' was an unlucky day on which it was best to do as little as possible in case some 'Satan' figure struck. Such belief was being deconstructed in the Sabbath law. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God spoke the words He did on six literal, consecutive days, and the orders ('fiats' is the word Alan Hayward uses) were therefore, in this sense, as good as done. But the actual time taken to carry them out by the Angels may have been very long. The Genesis record can then be understood as stating these commands on six literal days, and then recording their fulfilment- although the fulfilment wasn't necessarily on that same day.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul quotes this in <em><a href='B:560 6:2'>Eph 6:2</a></em>, with the comment that this is "the first commandment with promise"<em>. </em>Paul clearly saw "the promise" of the old covenant as being the hope of the new covenant; the hope of the promises made to the Jewish fathers was the Christian hope, as Paul so clearly stated at his trials. This involves eternal possession of a glorified earth- and not going to Heaven on death as an immortal soul.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The contemporary Near Eastern legal codes prescribed the most severe penalties for crimes against the wealthy and their property. Rich people were given lesser punishments than poor people for the same crime. The value of persons reflected in Yahweh's law meant that all people were judged equally before the law, and truly there was no respect of persons with the true God. Both father and mother are placed together as worthy of equal honour (<em><a href='B:30 19:3'>Lev 19:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>)- whereas the contemporary laws were oriented towards respect of the male rather than females. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 21:17'>Exo 21:17</a></em>) He spoke of as only one: "<em>the</em> commandment" (<em><a href='B:480 7:9'>Mar 7:9</a></em>). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (<em><a href='B:480 7:10'>Mar 7:10</a></em>). <em>Omitting</em> to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one's labour to God's temple, was therefore the same as <em>committing</em> the sin of cursing them. Sins of omission are perhaps our greatest weakness.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not murder- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command not to murder has as its basis the fact that human life is not for us to use as we will (<em><a href='B:20 20:13'>Exo 20:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a></em>). It is God's life and is His- and this applies to our view of others lives as well as our own. Others, therefore, are not for us to use as we will. Gentleness and sensitivity to the life of others, in family life, the workplace, on the road... is therefore an outcome of our belief that the 'other' person likewise has been created by God and has life from Him. To drive in an unkind way, to act in a thoughtless way to others detriment, is therefore the same basic error as taking human life in murder. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command "You shall not murder" must be understood in the context of a situation where the same Law also commanded certain sinners to be put to death within the community, and at times Israel were Divinely commanded and enabled to kill others outside of the community. We have to look, therefore, for a more specific meaning for this commandment- and it seems it is speaking specifically of blood revenge, killing the person who murdered one of your relatives. According to <em><a href='B:40 35:25-28'>Num 35:25-28</a></em>, if the murder was unintentional, i.e. manslaughter rather than murder, then the person could flee to a city of refuge lest he be slain by the avenger of blood. There is no guidance for the avenger of blood in these 'cities of refuge' passages; rather is there the assumption that he might well attempt to take revenge even for manslaughter, and in this case the unintentional murderer should flee from him into a city of refuge. But clearly enough, this was not God's will- for "You shall not kill". But such is God's grace that He built into His law a recognition that His people would fail. This isn't what we would expect of a 2+2=4 God, where broken commandments are to be punished and period. In this case, we see here a tacit recognition even within the Mosaic Law that the commandments- in this case "You shall not kill"- wouldn't always be obeyed, and therefore extra legislating was added to enable this situation to be coped with. This isn't only an example of God's sensitivity to human sin and weakness of hot blood (although it is that). It's an insight into how the very structure of His law is such that He understands human weakness, and is eager to ensure that it hurts others as little as possible. No more human 'god' would have dreamed this up. This grace has the stamp of the ultimately Divine, and any attempt to understand it within the frames of literalistic, legalistic analysis are doomed to failure. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not commit adultery- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is as is, but we note the majority of references to "adultery" in the Hebrew Bible refer to unfaithfulness to God. And we cannot rule out the possibility that God also had that in view; for these commandments were the basis of His relationship with His people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not steal- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew indeed means to steal, but also carries the idea of deceit. For to deceive another is to effectively steal from them, to take away and misuse their belief and trust in you and your integrity. And all deceit is ultimately in order to gain something wrongly, even the thing gained isn't anything material.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>AV "bear false witness". But the Hebrew for "bear" means not only "to give" in a legal sense. Otherwise this commandment would only apply to the need to be truthful in a court case. The Hebrew<em> anah</em> is literally "to eye", 'to give heed to'. Don't pay attention to lies, don't listen to gossip- understood like that, this commandment becomes relevant to daily life, and not just to the occasional times when a person might have to bear legal witness against someone.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour’s- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The command not to covet what looks good is very much rooted in a warning not to commit Eve’s sin of seeing the fruit and yielding to temptation (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>). The sin in Eden was every sin; we see elements of every one of our own sins in that sin. The frequent command "You shall not covet" (<em><a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a></em> etc.) uses the same Hebrew word translated "desire" when we read of how Eve "desired" the fruit (<em><a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a></em>); yet Israel "desired" the wrong fruit (<em><a href='B:290 1:29'>Isa 1:29</a></em>). As Eve saw the fruit and fell for it, so the people of Reuben and Gad saw the land East of Jordan and imagined how good it would be to have it, despite having been given 'all the land' West of Jordan to enjoy (cp. Adam and Eve's dominion in Eden) (<em><a href='B:40 32:1-2'>Num 32:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:7'>Num 32:7</a></em>). In all these allusions (and they exist in almost every chapter of the Bible) we are being shown how human sin is a repetition in essence of that of our first parents. The insistent emphasis is that we should rise above and <em>not</em> be like them. And yet this call for personal effort and struggle with ourselves in order to overcome sin is muted and misplaced by all the stress upon a supposed Devil tempting Eve, pushing the blame onto him, and thereby de-emphasizing our role in overcoming sin within ourselves. And so we see so many loud-mouthed condemners of the Devil totally not 'getting it' about the need for personal self-control and spiritual mindedness in daily life and private character. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God’s law differs from human laws in that it criminalizes internal attitudes. It was impossible to prove the sin of covetousness, nor enforce the law against it- because it’s invisible to others. Yet the God who sees all stands in judgment upon our innermost thoughts and desires. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>All the people perceived the thunderings, the lightnings, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. When the people saw it, they trembled, and stayed at a distance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Angel told Moses that the people would probably want to come up the mountain, closer to God, when in fact in reality they ran away when they saw the holiness of God; almost suggesting that the Angel over-estimated their spiritual enthusiasm (<em><a href='B:20 19:21-24'>Exo 19:21-24</a></em> cp. 20:18). Likewise the Angel told Moses that the people would hear him, "and believe you for ever" (<em><a href='B:20 19:9'>Exo 19:9</a></em>). Things turned out the opposite. At this time, God saw no iniquity in Israel (<em><a href='B:40 23:21'>Num 23:21</a></em>). His enthusiasm and positive hope for them was the outflow of an amazing love and grace toward them, and it is reflected all throughout the record.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The original plan had been as in <em><a href='B:20 19:13'>Exo 19:13</a></em> LXX: "When the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain<em>".</em> But this didn't happen- see on <em><a href='B:20 19:14'>Exo 19:14</a></em>. They were not sufficiently sanctified; see on <em><a href='B:20 19:10'>Exo 19:10</a></em>. The people "perceived" Yahweh's holiness and their sinfulness and continued idolatry. And they shied away from Him, whereas His intention was that they came close. These words are so sad. It was a rejection of intimacy with God.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They said to Moses, Speak with us yourself, and we will listen; but don’t let God speak with us, lest we die-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>People prefer not to have a direct relationship with God, hence the hierarchies and pyramid structure of many churches. But God wants to have a direct personal relationship with us as individuals. They failed to see that Divine words given through another person really are the voice of God to us personally. Perhaps our difficulty with appreciating an inspired Bible is similar; we know the theory, but do we really see the wonder of the fact that what we read is the awesome voice of God Himself to us?<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Moses is one of greatest types of the Lord Jesus, in whom the Father was supremely manifested. Because of this, it is fitting that we should see a very high level of God manifestation in Moses. Indeed it seems that God was manifest in Moses to a greater degree than in any other Old Testament character. Thus the law was “a law... which I (Yahweh) have written” (<em><a href='B:20 24:12'>Exo 24:12</a></em>). Yet the Lord Jesus speaks of Moses writing the precepts of the Law (<em><a href='B:480 10:5'>Mar 10:5</a></em>). “The book of the law of Moses” is parallel with “the book of the law of Yahweh” (<em><a href='B:160 8:1'>Neh 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 17:9'>2Ch 17:9</a></em>); it was “the book of the law of Yahweh given by Moses” (<em><a href='B:140 34:14'>2Ch 34:14</a></em>). His personal blessing of the people was that of God (Deuteronomy 33); and when he looked with pleasure upon the completed tabernacle and blessed Israel, he was imitating God’s inspection and blessing of the completed natural creation (<em><a href='B:20 39:43'>Exo 39:43</a></em>). Yet Israel tragically failed to appreciate the degree to which God was manifest in the words of Moses, as they did with Christ. This is shown by them asking for Moses to speak with them, not God; they failed to realize that actually his voice was God’s voice. They failed to see that commandments given ‘second hand’ really are the voice of God (<em><a href='B:20 20:19'>Exo 20:19</a></em>). Perhaps our appreciation of inspiration is similar; we know the theory, but do we really see the wonder of the fact that what we read is the awesome voice of God Himself? <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Moses said to the people, Don’t be afraid- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As discussed on :18, God's initial plan had been for the people to come close to Him. But they had shied away. Moses urges them to come close to him and to Yahweh, as Joseph did with his doubting brothers.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For God has come to test you- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God wanted the people to come close to Him, as explained on :18. So why then did He give them such a fearful display of His might and holiness, replete with thunder and some kind of volcano (:18)? To test them- whether they would really believe that despite His holiness and great power, He passionately loved them and was eager to overlook their sin and idolatry. But they failed the test- they didn't believe in His love and grace. And that finally is what faith is about- believing in the extent of His love, grace and salvation, to little me.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And that His fear may be before you, that you won’t sin-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The commentary of <em><a href='B:650 12:20'>Heb 12:20</a></em> is that Israel could not endure what God had spoken at this time. As explained above, the display of physical power and glory was in order to help them realize that despite all that, God was so eager to forgive and accept them. Believing that of itself would inspire them not to sin; a far stronger motivation than a bald statement of law and consequence for disobedience. But they couldn't believe it. And so they fled from Him both physically (see on :18) and finally, morally.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because God saved them from Egypt by grace (cp. baptism- <em><a href='B:530 10:1-2'>1Co 10:1-2</a></em>), with they themselves so spiritually weak at the time, still taking idols of Egypt through the Red Sea with them- <em>therefore</em> they were to keep the law (<em><a href='B:50 11:7-8'>Deu 11:7-8</a></em>). Because God gave them the land of Canaan, a land for which they did not labour, didn't do any 'work' to receive, but were given because "You did a favour unto them" (<em><a href='B:230 44:3'>Psa 44:3</a></em>)- <em>therefore </em>they were to keep the law (<em><a href='B:50 26:15-16'>Deu 26:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 29:8-9'>Deu 29:8-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 23:5-6'>Jos 23:5-6</a></em>). David said that he loved keeping the law <em>because</em> God's testimony to him was so miraculous (<em><a href='B:230 119:129'>Psa 119:129</a></em> Heb.). There is an awesomeness to God's grace in all this. Hence the paradox of <em><a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a></em>: "Fear not... that the fear of God may be before your faces". We are not to fear Him, for such perfect love casts out fear... yet it is exactly because of the wonder of all this that we live life in some fear / awe of misusing and abusing that grace. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The fear of judgment is used by Paul as a motivation for obedience in <em><a href='B:650 2:1-4'>Heb 2:1-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 4:1'>Heb 4:1</a></em>. An element of fear is not wrong in itself. Israel in the wilderness had the pillar of fire to remind them of God's close presence, and to thereby motivate them not to sin: "His fear (will) be before your faces, that ye sin not" (<em><a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a></em>). <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God wanted to speak directly with Israel at Sinai; and yet they urged Moses personally to go and hear what God wished to say, and tell them about it: "Go thou (you singular) near and hear" (<em><a href='B:50 5:23'>Deu 5:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 5:27'>Deu 5:27</a></em> AV). Moses urged them not to fear, and told them that this was all a test from God for them (<em><a href='B:20 20:20'>Exo 20:20</a></em>). But they didn't rise to it. Yet God accepted this lower level, so did He wish to communicate with them. And He used Moses as a mediator through whom He spoke His word to His people.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The people stayed at a distance- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In <em><a href='B:20 24:1'>Exo 24:1</a></em>, Yahweh tells the people to "worship from a distance" (s.w.). They shied away from Him (<em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>), whereas His intention was that they came close. But they retreated to "a distance" (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>). And yet God wanted at least some level of relationship with them, and so He still allows and encourages them to worship Him "from a distance", even although that was not His ideal initial intention. He had hoped for more intimacy with them.&nbsp; <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And Moses drew near- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although it had been God's intention that the priests should "draw near" to Him (<em><a href='B:20 19:22'>Exo 19:22</a></em> s.w.) and that the people "shall come up on the mountain<em>" (</em><em><a href='B:20 19:13'>Exo 19:13</a></em> LXX). Moses alone did this. Whilst he did so as their representative, it is all a tragic reflection of their rejection of intimacy with God. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To the thick darkness where God was- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The personal relationship which we have had with Christ will be very evident at the judgment. What we say to the Lord Jesus in His ear in the bedroom in the darkness, will be openly spoken by Christ at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a></em>). God dwells in darkness (<em><a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 8:12'>1Ki 8:12</a></em>). Speaking in the bedroom in secret with the knowledge we will be openly rewarded is the language of prayer (<em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>). Our private relationship with the Lord now, praying to Him in our bedroom, meditating about Him there, will then be spoken out loud. But there is a related statement from the Lord: What we hear from Him in the ear, we must speak openly (<em><a href='B:470 10:26-27'>Mat 10:26-27</a></em>; after the pattern of Isaiah in <em><a href='B:290 22:14'>Isa 22:14</a></em>). Putting these passages together, we get the picture of us speaking to God through Christ, talking in His ear, as one might whisper something very personal into a friend's ear, in the darkness of our bedroom. And then the Lord whispers back in our ear, i.e. His revelation to us (through the word) is very personal and not perceived by others; but we must openly, publicly act upon it. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh said to Moses, This is what you shall tell the children of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A true understanding of the word of God for what it is will be related to realistic response to it. Insofar as we believe that the Bible is inspired, we will feel the passion and power of it the more, and thereby its impact upon us will be the greater. Because of the wonder of having heard God's voice, therefore idolatry of any form will be meaningless for us. They 'saw' that God "talked with you"; they didn't "hear", but they had seen the visible evidence of His voice. No nation had a God like this. We see that it was through the testimony of His word that Yahweh revealed Himself as uniquely real, and no other god was therefore possibly real (see on :23). The inspired Bible which we have today is similar witness to us.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall most certainly not make alongside Me gods of silver, or gods of gold for yourselves-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Having seen the awesome theophany of Yahweh, it was utterly inappropriate and even laughable to consider that He cold somehow be placed alongside a piece of gold and worshipped as one of a line of deities upon a shelf. There was no comparison. And yet men worship gold and silver not only as Yahweh's equal, but even more than Him. In this lies the deep blasphemy of all materialism and worship of wealth. And yet this is the spirit of our age. For the Hebrew word for "silver" is that also translated "money".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God told Israel that He wanted altars made of earth; but He knew they would want to make altars of stone like the other nations, and He made allowance for this (<em><a href='B:20 20:24-25'>Exo 20:24-25</a></em>). The Law has several examples of this living on different levels. "You shall let nothing of (the Passover) remain until the morning; and that which remain of it until the morning you shall burn with fire" (<em><a href='B:20 12:10'>Exo 12:10</a></em>) is an evident example. God foresaw their disobedience to His stated principle, and made a concession and provision. Or take the Law’s ruling about tithes: “...neither shall he change it: and if he change it...” (<em><a href='B:30 27:33'>Lev 27:33</a></em>).<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We are made from the dust of the earth, which Genesis says was cursed. God doesn’t want beautiful externalities, He wants us to worship Him from the heart, accepting us as we are. The Law of Moses recognizes so often that Israel wouldn’t be fully obedient, hence the next verse goes on to speak of how&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;they still insisted on building not an earth altar but a stone one, then even if they make use of God’s concession to human weakness, they must still abide by His principles.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>However it could be argued that later Israel did make more permanent altars, and God went along with this and allowed acceptable sacrifice to be offered upon them. The commandment to make altars of earth could therefore be one of the many parts of the law of Moses which only applied to Israel in the wilderness. For they were constantly on the move.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 27:8'>Exo 27:8</a></em> commands the building of the bronze covered altar, with hollow boards. It could be that the hollow nature of the altar meant that a pile of earth was made, and the altar structure placed on top of it. But this would make it hard to understand how the ashes of the sacrifices could be collected. Surely the idea of a "grate" as commanded would have been meaningless if effectively the altar was solid earth inside it. So we are left with the conclusion that the 'altar of earth' instruction was not to apply to the tabernacle, but to altars for sacrifice which were used more local to the tents of the people. Or perhaps it was intended to only apply in the wilderness until the tabernacle was built. For clearly later altars were accepted by God, when they were not made of earth. We see in these considerations that the law of Moses was not inflexible, and God is not a literalist. Changed circumstances for His people changed His operational style with them, and His expectations of them.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In every place where I record My name- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>It is man who is to record or remember / memorialize the things of Yahweh's Name (s.w. <em><a href='B:230 20:7'>Psa 20:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 45:17'>Psa 45:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 12:4'>Isa 12:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 26:13'>Isa 26:13</a></em>), making no mention / record of the name of other gods apart from Yahweh (s.w. <em><a href='B:20 23:13'>Exo 23:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 13:2'>Zec 13:2</a></em>). But in <em><a href='B:20 20:24'>Exo 20:24</a></em> it is God who records or remembers His Name when He is worshipped acceptably. We see here the mutuality between God and man which is achieved in worship when it is done His way. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will come down to you and I will bless you</em>- <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>They had just witnessed Yahweh coming down in awesome majesty. Now they were told that He would in essence do this every time His people offered to Him on a humble earthen altar. There is a conscious juxtaposition between His coming down, and the idea of coming down upon an earthen altar.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“You” is you singular in the Hebrew here. Wherever an ordinary Israelite offered sacrifice, God would come to them personally. Yet this is the very language of God coming unto Moses on the top of Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em> “came down”)- as if to imply that the very pinnacle of Moses’ relationship with God, meeting Him on the top of the mount, is just as attainable for each of God’s people who truly sacrifices to Him. Wherever an ordinary Israelite offered sacrifice, “I will come unto thee (‘you’ singular) and bless thee” (<em><a href='B:20 20:23'>Exo 20:23</a></em> AV). This is the very language of God coming unto Moses on the top of Sinai (<em><a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a></em> RV)- as if to imply that the very pinnacle of Moses’ relationship with God, meeting Him on the top of the mount, is just as attainable for each of God’s people who truly sacrifices to Him. It is the equivalent of the promised presence of the Lord Jesus wherever two or three gather in His Name (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of cut stones; for if you lift up your tool on it, you have polluted it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:20 20:25'>Exo 20:25</a></em> says that the use of any tool upon an altar would defile it (also see <em><a href='B:50 27:5'>Deu 27:5</a></em>). This is how strongly God despises chic externality, and wants us to offer to Him as we are, uncut stones. He wants us, as we are, and not covered by cosmetics. In this we see the deep unspirituality of the altars in the temple, as designed by David and Solomon. I have suggested that although Solomon claims all this was commanded by God, in fact that was merely His assumption. Solomon attempted to get around this law by ensuring that the stones were cut away from the temple construction site (<em><a href='B:110 6:7'>1Ki 6:7</a></em>). But this surely was breaking the spirit of the law. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Israel had lived generations in Egypt, and had taken the idols of Egypt with them through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:330 20:7-8'>Eze 20:7-8</a></em>). The Egyptian altars were all of hewed stones, with images of their gods engraved upon them. Perhaps the insistence that "cut stones" must not be used was in order to strengthen them against the temptation to engrave images upon the sides of the altar, as they had seen in Egypt. We see how God's laws are designed not as a burden, but to ease our overall obedience to His ways.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Neither shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed to it’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the altar of Ezekiel's temple plan had steps leading up to it (<em><a href='B:330 43:17'>Eze 43:17</a></em>), whereas this was forbidden in <em><a href='B:20 20:26'>Exo 20:26</a></em>. The system described there was not a revival of the Mosaic system. The picture of fallen man in Genesis is never far away from God's commandments. He had asked them to make Him an altar from the dust of the earth (:24), alluding to how man was made from dust and that dust was now cursed. They were to be aware of Adam's fall, of his nakedness, and God's covering of it. And when they worshipped, they were to be particularly aware of their fallen state; and remind themselves of their need for a covering of nakedness. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew <em>mishpat</em>, "ordinances", has a wide range of meaning. The idea is of judgment, as if God and His Angels gave these laws as their considered judgment after considering the human condition, and Israel were to abide by them. But the word also the idea of a right or privilege; and that is how we should see God's laws. They are only felt as a burden because of human hardness of neck towards God's ways. His laws are not of themselves burdensome, but rather a privilege and blessing. The law was indeed "holy, just and good" (<em><a href='B:520 7:12'>Rom 7:12</a></em>), designed to inculcate a holy, just and good life (<em><a href='B:630 1:8'>Tit 1:8</a></em>), a way in which a man should "walk" in daily life (<em><a href='B:30 18:4'>Lev 18:4</a></em>), a culture of kindness and grace to others which reflected God's grace to man. If we dwell upon the idea of "rights" carried within the word <em>mishpat</em>, we note that the law begins in <em><a href='B:20 21:1-2'>Exo 21:1-2</a></em> (also <em><a href='B:50 15:12-18'>Deu 15:12-18</a></em>) with the rights of a slave- those considered to have no rights in the society of that day. The "rights" to be afforded by us to others are the essence of God's rightness / justice. <em>&nbsp;</em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years and in the seventh he shall go out free without paying anything- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Slaves could be bought out of slavery by others or by themselves somehow raising the required amount. Often they went into slavery in order to pay a debt. But six years was the maximum they could serve- that was enough to pay any debt. They could not be then forced to still pay some debt. This total freedom from debt may look forward to the intended "rest" of the Kingdom at the end of the 6 days / 6000 years of Biblical human history. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself. If he is married, then his wife shall go out with him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This reflects God's desire that husband and wife not separate nor be separated by others, especially for material reasons. The idea here seems to be that the husband could as it were save his wife from slavery; if he was the one in debt who had gone into slavery, or her debt was greater than his; then all the same, his redemption became hers. This too looks forward to the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus, "the servant of Yahweh" <em>par excellence. </em><em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This might possibly suggest that the "him" in "She bears <em>him</em>" is the master and not the husband. But this apparently oppressive ruling is to be read in the context of the next verses. The servant could retain his wife and children if he devoted himself to his master's house for the rest of his life. The situation was set up in order to make the servant pay a price for his wife and children. He made a free choice to marry whilst a servant; and he was to make that choice aware of the huge long term price he was going to have to pay for it. That was in order to help him understand the long term commitment required from a man in marrying and having children. It was a resignation of his personal freedom (:5), and the man had to knowingly make that choice. We can deduce that the marriage was completely his choice; if it were forced upon him by the master, then this would be the kind of personal manipulation and robbing of personal freedom which the law of Moses outlaws. And that is the take away lesson from this- all the more relevant in our age of casual relationships, married men refusing to resign personal freedom and fathering of children without taking personal responsibility. See on :5. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the servant shall plainly say, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go out free;’- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's crucifixion was likened to His ear (His hearing of the master's word) being nailed to an upright piece of wood (cp. the cross; <em><a href='B:20 21:6'>Exo 21:6</a></em> = <em><a href='B:230 40:6-8'>Psa 40:6-8</a></em> = <em><a href='B:650 10:5-12'>Heb 10:5-12</a></em>). That was the sign of His total dedication to the house of Yahweh, but it was motivated by His love for us, and commitment to entering an eternal relationship with us (see on :4). His relationship with us is described as "I and the children whom God has given me" (<em><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a></em>). This would allude to this situation, where the servant was 'given' a wife and thence children by the master, God (:4). The children were given to Him by God, the master, because He plainly declared His love for us, His wife and children. And that plain declaration was surely on the cross.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>then his master shall bring him to the elohim, and shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This speaks of bringing a slave "to God". This could refer to the <em>elohim</em>, the elders. Or it could refer to the door post of the home, and nailing his ear to it. "God" is paralleled with the door post. The servant was saying that he was now permanently attached to the household, symbolized by his ear being physically attached to it. The ear was chosen because this was a symbol of obedience to the master's word. R.E. Clements notes that this alludes to the ancient pagan practice whereby "a household god would have been kept by the threshold of a house to guard it" (R.E. Clements, <em>Exodus</em> (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1972) p. 133). Moses is attacking this idea- by saying that God, Israel's God, is the One there- and not the household gods which those around Israel believed were there.&nbsp; See on <em><a href='B:20 12:7'>Exo 12:7</a></em>.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This custom is alluded to in <em><a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a></em>, and applied to Christ in <em><a href='B:650 10:5-10'>Heb 10:5-10</a></em>. For love of us, the wife whom He was given by God His “master” (:4), Christ chose to stay in the Father’s house for ever. The nailing of the ear to a piece of wood is understood in Hebrews 10 as prophetic of Christ’s nailing to the cross. The ear represented obedient listening to the Master’s word. Christ on the cross was ultimately obedient to God’s word- for our sakes. That we are seen as His wife should inspire us to the utmost faithfulness and support of His cause in this world.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The question is whether this apparently lifelong commitment was undone by the provisions for the release of slaves at the year of Jubilee. The nature of the language used here would suggest that the freedom of the year of Jubilee didn't apply in this case. So we again see how the law of Moses, like any legal code, had internal contradictions, and times when one law must take precedence over another. These features of the law of Moses were in order to elicit thoughtful obedience to it, rather than blind obedience of a perfectly consistent legal code. For the law was to inculcate thoughtful relationships, both with God and man.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Men in debt would typically sell their daughters as servants, but they were often bought with a view to marrying them- either by the purchaser, or by his children. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If she doesn’t please her master, who has married her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The servant who was bought may have been bought blind, never having met her. Or the 'being evil in the eyes' (Heb.) of the master may be because she was found not to be a virgin. He could then sell her to another, but not to a Gentile. His 'deceit' was in that he had purchased a woman ostensibly as a female servant, when it was his plan to marry her.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he marries her to his son, he shall deal with her as a daughter- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Although she had been purchased as a servant, she was now effectively to be set free from that by her marriage to his son. She was not to be allowed to slip into the category of 'wife second class'. She was to be treated fully as his daughter in law and not as a servant, to run his errands.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If a man betrothed his slave girl unto his son, he "must" ("shall") treat her as he would his own daughter (:9). But if he didn't, she could go free (<em><a href='B:20 21:9-11'>Exo 21:9-11</a></em>). There were clearly different levels of obedience envisaged. "Her marital rights" seems to refer to sex. The man was to treat this woman still as his wife, even if he took another wife. We note that sex was considered a basic human need, as much as food and clothing. And we can infer from that as we will, guided by God's moral principles elsewhere expressed. But it should guide and help us in our consideration of all the moral and sexual issues we at times encounter in church life. We also note here that to continue having sex with her was required by the law; but as with the commands not to covet and to observe intimate hygiene in order to be "clean", there could be no mechanism to ensure obedience to this. How often the man was to sleep with the first wife was not defined. The law of Moses was God speaking to the hearts and personal consciences of people, rather than being merely a legal code, obedience to which could be judged solely by external behaviour. In this way, God's law was unlike any other legal code.&nbsp;&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he doesn’t do these three things for her, she may go free without paying any money-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"These three things" may not refer to the three things of <em><a href='B:20 21:10'>Exo 21:10</a></em>, but rather to the three courses of action in <em><a href='B:20 21:8-10'>Exo 21:8-10</a></em>. She would go out free, her father would not be required to repay any of the money which had been paid for her. Going out free might also imply that she was free to remarry. Clearly second marriage was envisaged and tolerated under the law of Moses.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Surely" foresees situations whereby there was a temptation for the death penalty for murder not to be enforced. In surrounding cultures, a wealthy person could murder their servants with impunity; the fits of rage of the wealthy and powerful were excused. But that was not to be so with God's people. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>but not if it is unintentional, but God allows it to happen- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is a comforting perspective on manslaughter- it was allowed by God to happen.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Then I will appoint you a place where he shall flee- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>That place was the altar (:14). Later, when Israel were in the land, cities of refuge were designated for these cases. And they were promised more cities of refuge if they continued in the path of obedience. We see here how God's saving purpose expands and changes form over time. It would also be an example of where many of the commands of the law of Moses were only relevant to the wilderness generation. Although in this case, using the altar as a city of refugee is found in <em><a href='B:110 1:50'>1Ki 1:50</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 2:28'>1Ki 2:28</a></em>.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man schemes and comes presumptuously on his neighbour to kill him, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The altar represented Christ (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). He is the place of refuge whither we may flee, we who like the man of :13 have committed sins worthy of death and yet against our deepest will. Whilst we cannot justify all our sins by blaming them on circumstances, within some kind of ‘situational ethic’, it is also true that God recognizes that at times and in some ways we sin without deeply intending to.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Anyone who attacks his father or his mother shall be surely put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Significantly, the mother is treated on the same level as the father. The law of Moses afforded the same human dignity to both genders, and was far ahead of its time in this- for it reflects the huge value which God places upon the human person. As in :17 the law exalts the value of parents, and seeks to inculcate particular honour towards them. Instances of hitting or cursing parents (:17) were most likely to occur in heated domestic squabbles where there was no outside witness. So here again we have an example of God's law legislating about intimate personal matters, rather like the law not to covet. There was no way that this could be legally proven. The law was intended as a personal dialogue between God and the individual Israelite.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The laws of Hammurabi stated that if a man struck his father, his hand was to be cut off. But God's law was far stricter- the punishment was death. For God so deeply wanted respect for parents. I suggest the allusions to the laws of Hammurabi were in order to explain to Israel where the existing laws they had known were wrong, where they were right, and where they were partly right and needed reframing. The greatest difference is that the law of Moses sees sin as being against God, whereas the other legal codes see failure as a sin against society alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>To deprive someone of their personal freedom is treated here in the same context as murder (:14). Whilst we may not be tempted to kidnap anyone, there are other ways in which in essence we can deprive another of their personal freedom, treating them as a thing rather than a person. The selling of the kidnapped Israelite (<em><a href='B:50 24:7'>Deu 24:7</a></em>) was likely to a Gentile nation. This was going to distance the person from the sanctuary and the ways of God. To cause another to spiritually stumble is worthy of eternal death, the Lord was to later teach. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Found in his hand" could mean that he had purchased such a kidnapped person. Or maybe he had kidnapped him and was keeping him as a captured person, with a view to selling him. But the idea is that he had taken another person and deprived them of their freedom, inappropriately asserting control over another. And this is a principle which can apply to many situations which may not today be judged as criminal.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus saw as parallel the commands to honour parents and also not to curse them. These two separate commands (from <em><a href='B:20 20:12'>Exo 20:12</a></em> and <em><a href='B:20 21:17'>Exo 21:17</a></em>) He spoke of as only one: "<em>the</em> commandment" (<em><a href='B:480 7:9'>Mar 7:9</a></em>). He therefore saw that not to honour parents was effectively to curse them (<em><a href='B:480 7:10'>Mar 7:10</a></em>). <em>Omitting</em> to honour parents, even if it involved appearing to give one's labour to God's temple, was therefore the same as <em>committing</em> the sin of cursing them. Sins of omission are perhaps our greatest weakness. To deal with a person as if they are an object is judged by God as bad as murder. The value and meaning of the human person is paramount with God, and is reflected in His law.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he doesn’t die, but is confined to bed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea seems to be that the injured party was also guilty because he had been involved in the quarrel. AV "strive together" may imply that the two men were in an actual fight, rather than simply quarreling. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>if he rises again and walks around with his staff, then he who struck him shall be cleared: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for his healing until he is thoroughly healed- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This is not a light punishment. Rather the injured man was paying the price for having been involved in the fight in the first place; see on :18.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the Lord as the good Samaritan taking care for the man is expressed in the language of <em><a href='B:20 21:19'>Exo 21:19</a></em>, which says that if a man wounds another, "he shall pay... and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed". This somewhat odd allusion (at first sight) surely indicates that the Lord took upon Himself the full blame for our stricken condition, presumably in the sense that as the second Adam He took upon Himself the guilt of Adam. This is why there are so many connections between His death and the effects of Adam's sin (e.g. the crown of thorns, the Garden etc.). The way Christ compared Himself to a Samaritan, half Jew and half Gentile, shows that especially on the cross, this is how He felt. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>A slave was to be respected as a person no less than anyone else. A person’s social or economic standing can never excuse abusing them. However we note the lack of a specific death penalty. The law does allow meaning to the fact that a person was a servant, and thereby the property of another. There appears to be the acceptance of corporal punishment even for a slave (<em><a href='B:240 10:13'>Pro 10:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a></em>).&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We may well wonder why the whole idea of slavery was permitted under the law of Moses. I see it as the same question as to why polygamy was permitted. It was a concession to their weakness. To square these commands with other principles in the law of Moses, the Rabbis suggest that the servant in view must be a Gentile one. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The situation may be of men fighting between themselves, and a pregnant woman being unintentionally damaged. These may have been the situations which Moses had so far encountered whilst leading the people. Or perhaps Moses had been asked to judge a situation like this at the time of <em><a href='B:20 2:13'>Exo 2:13</a></em>. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The "harm (which) follows" appears to be to the child when it is born. "Follows" implies that the harm is only later revealed, and therefore the reference is to the child and not to the woman. The value of the health and state of a newborn child is thereby taught. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law of Moses. It still stood when He gave His teaching (<em><a href='B:470 5:38'>Mat 5:38</a></em>). Yet He said that instead of insisting upon an eye for an eye in situations like a pregnant woman having a deformed child because of the violence of a man, she should instead try to forgive him (<em><a href='B:20 21:22-24'>Exo 21:22-24</a></em>). He was not changing the Law, as some have wrongly thought. He was saying that the Law was capable of being lived on different levels, and that some aspects of it were a concession to human weakness. Thus the woman with a deformed child could legitimately express her anger by insisting on the physical deformation of the man who had attacked her during pregnancy; but this, the Lord was saying, can give way to a higher level: simply forgive the man.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Burning" or (Heb.) 'branding' would refer to permanent scars, and that is likely also the idea of 'wound' and 'bruise'.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man strikes his servant’s eye, or his maid’s eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This may seem fair enough, but then there is juxtaposed against this the command in :27 that this is also true if the tooth of a servant was knocked out. To loose a tooth is far less than to loose an eye. But the sense was that any permanent damage to another, even if they were a slave, was to result in the granting of freedom. Most people were in slavery because they had been sold into it because of debts. The debts were thereby cleared and the master stood at a financial loss because of his fit of temper.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he strikes out his male servant’s tooth, or his female servant’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :26. We note that the law stressed the equality of male and female servants; whereas female servants were considered of far less legal value under the surrounding legal codes<em>. </em>Again we see the huge value attached to the human person by the Divine law, regardless of gender.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the bull shall not be held responsible- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These laws are almost verbatim with the laws of Hammurabi 250-252. The question is, who copied whom? In this section of Exodus 21 there are various allusions to the Hammurabi laws- but with significant differences. I suggest the allusions to the laws of Hammurabi were in order to explain to Israel where the existing laws they had known were wrong, where they were right, and where they were partly right and needed reframing. The greatest difference is that the law of Moses sees sin as being against God, whereas the other legal codes see failure as a sin against society alone.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if the bull had a habit of goring in the past, and it has been testified to its owner, and he has not kept it in, but it has killed a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Because Eli wouldn't exercise discipline, he was somehow seen as committing those very things which he failed to rebuke. The man who wouldn’t discipline his wayward ox was to be treated like as if he had committed the crime the ox did, and therefore must die if the ox killed a man (<em><a href='B:20 21:29'>Exo 21:29</a></em>). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a ransom is laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid on him-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Remember that the Rabbis taught that salvation was impossible for Gentiles: “For the heathen nations there will be no redemption”, so reads the targum on <em><a href='B:20 21:30'>Exo 21:30</a></em>. Like us, the early Jewish converts were influenced by their backgrounds and their limited world views. Until the Lord brought experiences to bear which, when responded to, taught them what is now the obvious meaning of His words- that we each have a duty to take the good news of Him to the whole planet. After His resurrection, the Lord Jesus was <em>sent </em>to preach blessing and forgiveness to Israel (<em><a href='B:510 3:26'>Act 3:26</a></em>). But after His resurrection, He sent His men to preach this message. His witness became expressed through, and therefore limited by, His preachers. When they willfully misunderstood His commission as meaning preaching to Jews from all nations, rather than taking the message to the whole planet literally, His work was in that sense hindered and His intention delayed.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Whether it has gored a son or has gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again we see the huge value attached to the human person by the Divine law, regardless of gender (also in :32). To gore is in Hebrew literally 'to push down'. The leaders of Israel were later condemned for pushing down the weak and vulnerable in the flock of God (<em><a href='B:330 34:21'>Eze 34:21</a></em> s.w.). And so a wider principle emerges- that we are culpable before God if we allow others to be pushed down by our indifference and inattention. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the bull gores a male servant or a female servant, thirty shekels of silver shall be given to their master, and the ox shall be stoned- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The price of a slave was thirty shekels of silver, and this was the price of the Lord Jesus. He is constantly hinted at throughout the Mosaic law, as the consummate "servant of Yahweh". <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and doesn’t cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Lord's story about the little boy who falls down the well spoke of how He was out to save Israel, who had fallen down the well for the sake of the inattention of others. The legalistic mind would have gone straight to <em><a href='B:20 21:33'>Exo 21:33</a></em>: the man who dug a well and didn’t cover it was responsible for any deaths arising from it. The Lord's story would imply that the father of the child was the owner of the well. The Lord doesn’t draw the lesson that 'It's your own fault for being disobedient to the Law'. He focuses instead on the need to act <em>urgently</em> to save, without maxing out on the issue of whose <em>fault</em> it was that the tragedy had occurred.<em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I once heard a middle class woman say to her child (in that irksome White Anglo-Saxon Protestant way): "Look at that bad man lying there in the gutter. He’s been <em>drinking</em>! <em>Silly </em>man, hey!". She didn’t want to imagine how that red, contoured face had once been a sweet baby, a mothers pride and joy; a mischievous little lad at school; a young man with an ambition to marry a young woman and have a family. Yes, on one level it was his fault he was in the gutter. But the heart that bleeds sees the tragedy, the human pain and wastage of it all. The heart that bleeds cant walk on by. It will realize our limited ability to judge the total circumstances in any human encounter, but more than that, it will be hopeful and seeking for Gods glory to be achieved in the most apparently hopeless of cases. God need not have grieved for the grief of Israel. It <em>was</em> their fault. But He did, and He eventually grieved for it to the extent of giving His own son to be done to death. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the owner of the pit shall make it good. He shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall be his- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>These laws were seeking to inculcate sensitivity to others. We too should live our lives thinking about the possible consequence to others of our actions, both in what we commit and what we omit to do.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If one man’s bull injures another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live bull, and divide its price; and they shall also divide the dead animal- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Arguments amongst herdsmen were infamous. We think of the various conflicts which the patriarchs were involved in. God shows Himself absolutely aware of and sensitive to such very common human situations. Truly man is not alone, but God knows and is aware. And seeks to guide us through them.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Or if it is known that the bull was in the habit of goring in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall surely pay bull for bull, and the dead animal shall be his own- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see here the principle that knowledge brings responsibility. The abiding principle is that of restraint of situations which are likely to lead to damage. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it, or sells it; he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note that the Mosaic law had no concept of prisons or custodial sentences, even though this was practiced in the surrounding world. We think of Joseph in prison in Egypt. God wanted issues to be decided immediately, forgiven and resolved- and "play on". And this is reflected in the law of Moses. Prison seems not to really reform many people. And that is why we are to immediately reconcile with our brother.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The original text here is difficult. GNB suggests: "If a thief is caught breaking into a house at night and is killed, the one who killed him is not guilty of murder. But if it happens during the day, he is guilty of murder". The idea would then be that if a man kills a thief while he is in the act of breaking in to a home, this is not to be counted as murder. But if some time passes and then the owner as an act of revenge murders the thief, this is seen by God differently. Surely this reflects the fact that God is more lenient to sins committed in hot blood than those more premeditated. Yet on the other hand, sin is sin. His law, as law, can appear to make no distinction between sins of passion and premeditated sins, if the same act is committed in the end. However, this and other examples indicate God’s willingness to concede to human weakness, and recognize sins of passion more leniently than others. And our judgment in ecclesial life should reflect this too. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the sun has risen on him, guilt of bloodshed shall be for him; he shall make restitution-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>See on :2. There was perhaps the possibility of making restitution with money even when guilty of murder. <em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This presumably speaks of the thief, if he survived; whereas the first part of the verse speaks of the person who killed a thief.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the stolen property is found in his hand alive, whether it is ox, donkey, or sheep, he shall pay double- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The way God restored double to Job at the end has echoes of how a thief had to restore double (<em><a href='B:20 22:2-4'>Exo 22:2-4</a></em>)- as if God in His love for Job wished to show Himself as having been somehow ‘guilty’ for taking away from Job what He had? <em><a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a></em>, in the context of Israel's punishment by the Babylonians, says that their judgment had been double what it ought to have been; and yet Ezra says it was less than the promised proportionate recompense for their sins. Here we have the utter, inconsistent grace of God; almost taking guilt for punishing them (cp. how God likewise takes the blame in <em><a href='B:290 54:6-8'>Isa 54:6-8</a></em>, as if He had forsaken Israel as a sweet innocent young wife). <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and lets his animal loose, and it grazes in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field, and from the best of his own vineyard- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There was to be no excuse in claiming that an animal had done this, and not the owner. The abiding principle is that we are not to manipulate others of diminished responsibility, such as an animal in this case, and claim we did nothing wrong. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If fire breaks out, and catches in thorns so that the stacks of grain, or the standing grain, or the field are consumed; he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"Breaks out" implies it gets out of control, burning beyond the intended area within one property, catching thorns on fire and thereby burning up harvested grain in time of harvest. The principle is that we may unintentionally begin something which then ignites a third party, the thorns, and this then causes huge damage. The fire in the standing grain had in fact been kindled by the man who first kindled the fire in his own territory. What we begin can have huge repercussions, because it is spread further through a third party. And we must bear some responsibility, even if the consequences were not envisaged by us initially. Thus a relationship breakdown between two people within their own home may ignite another person, who in turn spreads the breakdown on a massive scale, with large scale damage. And thus many church divisions have come about.&nbsp; <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man delivers to his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But Zacchaeus paid back four times what he had stolen (<em><a href='B:490 19:8'>Luk 19:8</a></em>). The existence of God’s law shouldn’t inculcate a spirit of minimalism in us, doing the letter of the law and no more. Rather if we perceive the principles behind it, we will do far over and above what the letter of the law requires.&nbsp;<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If the thief isn’t found, then the master of the house shall come near to God, to find out if he hasn’t put his hand to his neighbour’s goods-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"God" is the <em>elohim</em>, the judges or priests who represented God. In the context of these situations which required a yes or no decision, it could be that the urim and thummim were used. These two stones in the breastplate flashed out binary answers to requests, so truly the case came "to God".&nbsp; We note how the law given in the wilderness envisaged Israel soon living in houses in the promised land.<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing, about which one says, ‘This is mine’, the cause of both parties shall come before God. He whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbour-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>‘God’ here refers to the judges or elders; to come before God’s representative is to come before God. Hence GNB "the two people claiming the property shall be taken to the place of worship". LXX "according to every injury alleged... and every alleged loss".<em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man delivers to his neighbour a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies or is injured, or driven away, no man seeing it- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This again is a commandment particularly relevant to the infamous quarrels between herdsmen, which would have been common in the wilderness journey. For Israel left Egypt with much cattle, whom they herded through the desert. We think of the various conflicts which the patriarchs were involved in. God shows Himself absolutely aware of and sensitive to such very common human situations. Truly man is not alone, but God knows and is aware. And seeks to guide us through them. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>the oath of Yahweh shall be between them both, whether he hasn’t put his hand to his neighbour’s goods; and its owner shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The initial intention was that Israel would so fear Yahweh that an oath before Him was assumed to be sufficient. But the Lord Jesus saw that there was a strong tendency to swear falsely, and so He urges us not to take such oaths, but to make our "yes" or "no" mean just that. This was in fact demanding an even higher level of truthfulness. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But if it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The man who had his neighbour's animal with him was responsible for it if it were stolen, but not if it were killed by wild animals (:13). This might imply that the person was held responsible for finding the thief and getting restitution from him. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If it is torn in pieces, let him bring it for evidence. He shall not make good that which was torn-</em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The brothers allowed Joseph to be stolen away (<em><a href='B:10 40:15'>Gen 40:15</a></em>), and then presented his garment as evidence that he had been "torn in pieces" by wild animals (s.w. <em><a href='B:10 37:33'>Gen 37:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:28'>Gen 44:28</a></em>). So again we see that the essence of the Mosaic law was known well before, but was now being codified formally. <em></em></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>If a man borrows anything of his neighbour’s, and it is injured, or dies, its owner not being with it, he shall surely make restitution- </em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We see the internal consistency of the Biblical record in the concern over the loss of the axe head (<em><a href='B:120 6:5'>2Ki 6:5</a></em>), which was a situation directly envisaged in the law here.&nbsp; See on :15.<em></em></p>


