15. § 3. The Deliverance Out of Egypt: Exo_7:8, to the End of Chap. 15

§ 3. The Deliverance Out of Egypt:Exodus 7:8, to the End of Chap. 15

Now begins the struggle of God with the world and the visible representative of its invisible head,—the latter adapted for this representation by their moral abandonment, no less than their power, which ends in their complete overthrow. Now begins a series of events which are at the same time so many prophecies. The gradual progressive victory of God and His people over Pharaoh, the mightiest ruler of the then existing world, and his kingdom, is a pledge of the victory of God and his church over the whole region of darkness, and that subservient world-power which is at enmity with God, and appears in Revelation under the image of the beast with seven heads, of which Egypt is the first. The number of the Egyptian plagues is generally estimated at eleven. But they are rather completed, certainly with design, in the number ten, the signature of that which is complete in itself, of that which is concluded in Scripture. For that miracle which is generally regarded as the first, the changing of Moses’ staff into a serpent, is not to be reckoned among them. It is distinguished from the others by the fact that it is not, like them, punishment at the same time, but is only a proof of the omnipotence of God, and not a proof of His justice. It is distinguished also by the circumstance that it follows the demand of Pharaoh, while the others are forced upon him. It may be regarded as a sort of prelude, as if somebody were to fire into the air before aiming at the enemy, in order to see if by this means he will be brought to his senses. And at the same time we must regard it as a symbol, as an actual prophecy of all that was to follow. The staff of Moses which was changed into a serpent, is an image of the covenant people, weak in themselves, but able by God’s power to destroy the mightiest kingdom of the world; an image of Moses, who, considered in himself, was scarcely dangerous to a child, but as God’s servant formidable to the mightiest monarch in the world.

Let us now turn our attention to the object of these facts. It is given by God Himself in His address to Pharaoh, Exodus 9:15-16 : “For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.” God will be known upon the earth in His true character. Hence He who could have settled the whole matter with one stroke, developes His essence perfectly in a series of facts; hence He hardens the heart of Pharaoh. This revelation of the divine essence had reference first to the Egyptians. In this respect it is on a level with other judgments on the heathen world—the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the expulsion of the Canaanites. The time to restrain the corruption of the world in an internal and efficacious way had not yet come; but that it might come at a future time, retributive justice must permeate the destinies of nations, humble their pride, and break their power. This was the preliminary part in God’s hand. This was the condition of future closer communion; com p. Isaiah 26:9-10. With proud disdain Pharaoh had challenged God with the words, “Who is Jehovah, that I should obey his voice? “This question demands a real answer; and the more boldly the question is repeated, the more obstinately Pharaoh rebels against the God who has already revealed Himself, the more his guilt is increased by this circumstance, the more perceptibly must the answer resound till the final, complete destruction of the defiant rebel. The divine jus talionis which realizes itself throughout the whole history must also be exemplified in him—must be most unmistakeably exemplified in him, that it may also be recognised elsewhere, where it is more concealed. Because God could not glorify Himself in Pharaoh, He must be glorified by him. Pharaoh must repay what he had robbed—by his possessions, by his child, by his life. And in treating of the meaning of the plagues for Egypt, it seems right that we should enter somewhat more closely into this passage, Exodus 12:12, “And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.” According to the assertion of v. Hofmann, which is adopted by Baumgarten, Delitzsch, and others, this passage implies that in the plagues God manifested His omnipotence and justice not only to the Egyptians, but also to the spiritual powers to whom Egypt belonged. Spiritual rulers, he maintains, are at work in the corporeal world. They are spirits but not original, and are powerful, but only where the Creator allows them to have sway. But even if these powers, which are only the product of phantasy, really did exist, the passage could not have reference to them. For the question here is not of subordinate spirits, but of gods. Those passages in the New Testament which v. Hofmann cites in favour of their existence have no weight. In 1 Corinthians 8:5, ὥσπερ εἰσὶ θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, and the preceding λεγόμενοιθεοὶ, have reference only to an existence in the heathen consciousness; and in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, a demoniacal background of heathendom is only asserted in general; the real existence of separate heathen deities is not taught. Since, therefore, all Scripture teaches the non-existence of the heathen deities, and since the scriptural idea of God excludes their reality (comp. Beiträge, Bd. ii. S. 248), we can only refer the judgment contained in this passage respecting the gods of Egypt to the circumstance that by those events their nothingness was made manifest, and they were proved to be mere λεγόμενοιθεοὶ. It is clear that the presupposition that idols have no existence beyond what is merely material, lies at the basis of the two passages, Leviticus 19:4, “Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods;” and Leviticus 26:1, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it.” The assumption of their nothingness has its foundation in this. The passage, Isaiah 41:24, “Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought,” which serves to explain the Elihim, is preceded by “do good or do evil,” as a proof that the non-existence of the gods is absolute. The whole sharp polemic against idolatry contained in the second part of Isaiah, especially in the classic passage Isaiah 44:9-24, rests upon the presupposition that idols do not exist apart from images. This is explicitly stated in Psalms 46:5, and copiously proved in Psalms 115, in expansion of the Mosaic passage, Deuteronomy 4:28, “And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell”—are less than the man who fashions them, which is perfectly clear, and which in itself forms a sufficient refutation of v. Hofmann. Ewald (Gesch. Isr. S. 109) appeals to Exodus 15:11 in support of his theory, where it is said that Jehovah is not like to any among the gods. But it is proved by Psalms 86:8, that in this and similar passages the gods are only imaginary. We only add that Kurtz, Gesch. des A. B. S. 86 sqq., mistakes the meaning of the whole thing. The question is not whether heathendom has a demoniacal background. This is recognised by all Christendom. Scripture bears clear testimony to it in those passages which we have already cited, and experience confirms it. The question is, whether individual heathen deities, such as Apollo and Minerva, have or have not a real existence. Scripture determines the latter; and with this determination science goes hand in hand; for we can clearly prove a human origin in a succession of heathen deities. This, therefore, is the reference which the wonders and signs had to Egypt. But the reference of the Egyptian plagues to Israel was of infinitely greater importance. By these events Elohim was to become Jehovah to them. Here He manifested Himself as such in a series of days more powerfully than He had formerly done in centuries. His omnipotence and grace were now openly displayed. We have a repetition of the history of the creation in miniature. There everything was created for the human race; here everything created, departing from its ordinary course, was designed for the salvation of the chosen race, and for the destruction of its enemies. Thus the God who had hitherto been concealed became manifest and living to Israel, an object of grateful love. They could say, with Job: “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth Thee.” What these events were intended to convey to Israel we learn from Exodus 10:1-2, where it is said: “I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might show these my signs before him: and that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them.” But we recognise it most fully in seeing what these events became to them. When everything visible seems to deny that the Lord is God, then the faith of the Psalmist clings to no actual proof of this great and difficult truth with such firmness as to this; comp. Psalms 115. When the prophets wish to remove the doubts which the flesh opposed to their announcement of the future wonderful exaltation of the now lowly kingdom of God, they constantly go back to this time when the invisible power of God made itself visibly manifest—to this type of the last and greatest redemption. When all around is gloom, and the Lord seems to have quite forsaken His people, the believing spirit penetrates into these facts, and sees them revive. But we must not overlook the close connection between such events and the legislation which follows. This is evident from the fact that the latter began with the words, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” God surrenders Himself to Israel before requiring that Israel should surrender itself to Him. Here also He remains faithful to His constant method of never demanding before He has given. Love to God is the foundation of obedience to Him; and it is impossible to love a mere idea, however exalted. The language of revelation is throughout, “Let us love Him, for He first loved us.” But these events are also a preparation for the giving of the law, in so far as they guarantee Moses, the mediator between God and the nation, as such. In the narrative itself, Exodus 14:31, this is stated to have been the result: “And the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and His servant Moses.” Announced by Moses, the divine signs are ushered in; at his command they disappear; his staff is the staff of God, his hand the hand of God. As a sign that God allows all the wonders to take place through his mediation, he must always begin by stretching out his hand and staff over Egypt. Moses could not afterwards have demanded so severe things in the commission of God, if he had not now given so great things in the same commission. By these deeds the better self of the nation was raised in Moses to the centre of its existence, and the success of its reaction against the corruption which had begun to permeate the nation was secured. But the events are of the greatest importance for the Christian church no less than for Israel. It is true that we have before us the last and most glorious revelation of God. Compared with redemption in Christ, the typical deliverance out of Egypt falls into the background, as was already foretold under the old covenant: comp. Jeremiah 23:7-8, Jeremiah 16:14-15. But we cannot know too much of God. Every one of His actions makes Him more personal, brings Him nearer to us. If, like the Psalmist and the prophets, we look upon these events not as dead facts, if we do not adhere to the shell, we shall find them to contain an unexpected treasure. Our flesh so readily obscures God’s grace and righteousness, that we must be sincerely thankful for that mirror from which its image shines out upon us. Moreover, the Pharaoh in our hearts is so well concealed, that we greatly need such an outward illumination for his unveiling.

If we now look at the form and matter of the miracles, we see some analogy to each in the natural condition of Egypt, the agency of which had only to be strengthened, and which had to be secured against every natural derivation by circumstances such as the commencement and ceasing of them at the command of Moses, in part at a time determined by Pharaoh himself, and by the sparing of the Israelites. The same thing takes place afterwards in the miracles in the wilderness. Miracle explainers, such as Eichhorn, have sought to find in this a confirmation of their interpretations. But De Wette has already disproved this: in his Krit. der Israel. Gesch. S. 193 (Beiträge z. Einl. in d. A. T. ii.), he shows that every attempt to explain miracles as they are described in the narrative in a natural way, is vain. Apart from all else, how could they have had such an effect on Pharaoh and on Israel? But these miracle explainers are like Pharaoh himself, who may be looked upon as their father. Unable to recognise the finger of God, they anxiously look for anything which can serve as a palliation of their want of faith. If they and the mythicists who make this union with nature an argument that the Egyptian plagues belong to the region of poetry, would consider the thing impartially, they would see that the very character of the miracles attests their truth and divinity. In this respect, God’s mode of dealing remains always the same. As a rule, He attached His extraordinary operations to His ordinary ones. We have only to look at the analogy in the spiritual department, where there is no χάρισμα which has not a natural talent as its basis. In a mythical representation, all that the author knew of the wonderful or terrible would be heaped up, without any reference to the natural condition of Egypt; and if he were acquainted with that natural state, he would even avoid everything which might favour an explanation by it, and so apparently lessen the miracle. The universal ground for this condition of the supernatural in Scripture is, that it places even the natural in the closest relation to God. The attempt to isolate the miraculous can only consist with godlessness. But here there was a special reason. The object to which all facts tended was, according to Exodus 8:18, to prove that Jehovah the Lord was in the midst of the land. And this proof could not be substantially conducted if a series of strange horrors were introduced. From them it would only follow that Jehovah had received an occasional and external power over Egypt. On the other hand, if yearly recurring results were placed in relation to Jehovah, it would be shown very properly that He was God in the midst of the land. At the same time, judgment would be passed on the imaginary gods which had been put in His place, and they would be completely excluded from the regions which had been regarded as peculiar to them.

It would lead us too far to prove in detail how a natural substratum is present throughout all the plagues, while in none is a natural explanation admissible. For this we refer to the treatise, “The Signs and Wonders in Egypt,” in The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 93 sqq. The miracles are taken from the most various departments. That which was a blessing to Egypt is converted into a curse; the hurtful which was already in existence is increased to a fearful degree. The smallest animals become a terrible army of God. In this way, it was shown that every blessing which ungrateful Egypt attributed to its idols originated with Jehovah, and that it was He alone who checked the efficacy of that which was injurious. With respect to Pharaoh, Calvin remarks: “Nobis in unius reprobi persona superbiae et rebellionis humanae imago subjicitur.” This is the kernel of the whole representation. Everything is so represented that each one can find it out; and what is still more, all the arrangements of God are such that this obduracy must be apparent. The hardness of heart is important for us in a double aspect: first, in so far as it originated with Pharaoh, who was not brought to repent even by the heaviest strokes, and so to ward off that fate which led him with irresistible power step by step to his destruction; and again—and on this the narrator’s eye is specially fixed—in so far as the greatness of God manifests itself in the incomprehensible blindness with which Pharaoh goes to meet his ruin, compelling him to do what he would rather not have done. The greatness of human corruption is seen in the fact that he will not desist from sin; the greatness of God, in the fact that he is not able to desist from that form of sin in which it is madness to persevere. Every sinner stands under such a fate, from whose charmed circle he can only escape by the salt. mortale of repentance. It is the curse of sin, that it lowers man to a mere involuntary instrument of the divine plans. At the first interview Moses dare not yet reveal the whole counsel of God. Now, and even afterwards, he demands not the complete release of the people, but only permission to hold a festival in the wilderness. There was no deception in this. When God gave the command, He ordered that the request should be put in such a form that Pharaoh would not listen to it. If he had complied with it, which was not possible, Israel would not have gone beyond the demand. But the object was only that, by the smallness of the demand, Pharaoh’s obstinacy might be more apparent. He refuses the simple request, and only oppresses the Israelites the more, while he mocks their God. After some little time Moses and Aaron repeated their demand, this time with far greater assurance, representing the misery which the king would bring upon his own people by non-compliance. He becomes obstinate; and instead of proving the goodness of the cause by internal grounds, he asks a sign. Ungodliness always seeks some plausible pretence which may pass for the spirit of proof. What need was there here for a sign? His conscience told him that he had no right to retain Israel; and the inner voice of God convinced him that the outward command to let them go emanated from God. Nevertheless God granted him what he desired, that the nature of his obstinacy might become visible, and that the depth of human corruption on the one side, and on the other side the energy of God’s righteousness and the infinitude of His power, might be made manifest. Nevertheless, in conformity with God’s constant method in nature and history, the matter was so arranged that unbelief always retained some hook to which it could adhere; for God always gives light enough even for weak faith, at the same time leaving so much darkness that unbelief may continue its night-life. The miracle of the conversion of the staff into the serpent was imitated by the Egyptians; and thus Pharaoh was punished for the confidence which he had placed in these idolaters, to the neglect of the true God. But, at the same time, the circumstance that the serpent of Moses devoured the serpents of the priests must have convinced any one of candour and judgment, that the secret arts owed their efficacy only to God’s permission. Pharaoh had not this candour and judgment. His sinful corruption had robbed him of goodwill, and God had deprived him of insight and wisdom. He anxiously seized the feeble support. Now begin those signs which are at the same time punishment. In the first two it happened as in the case of the previous sign. Again a handle was given to Pharaoh’s unbelief. The servants of the idols imitated, though only in a small way, what the servants of God had done on a large scale. If Pharaoh had had any willingness and insight, this could not have deceived him. The inner criteria always remained; and even when looked at externally, he might have been easily convinced that what the sorcerers had accomplished did not happen by their independent power, but only by the permission of the same God by whose power the works of Moses and Aaron were effected: he might have seen that the enchanters were not able to remove evil, but only to increase it. And in the second miracle this did make some impression on Pharaoh. He “was obliged to appeal to the servant of God for a remedy, which was granted at the exact time appointed by Pharaoh himself, to whom Moses had left the determination. But when Pharaoh saw that he was extricated, he hardened his heart. Where the divine has no inner point of contact with the spirit, its outward appearance can only operate so long as it exists in the immediate present: once let it disappear from the present, and immediately unbelief, and that foolishness which is bound up with it by God’s order and decree, assert themselves, and in the place of real wonders put the monstra of a sceptical interpretation. If my priests have been able to do so much, Pharaoh thought, then in certain circumstances they will be able to do this much also. It is accidental that these circumstances are not now present, and they will soon come. The third plague succeeds. The divine permission completely ceases, and with it also the power of the Egyptian wise men. Pharaoh is forsaken by his own helpers. Less hardened than he, they say, “It is the finger of God,” that is, “they have gained the victory by the power of God, and by this means God has decided in favour of their cause.” Elohim here expresses the universal idea of the Godhead, which has never quite disappeared even from heathendom. But Pharaoh remains unsoftened. In the fourth miracle, and those which follow, there enters an element not present in the earlier ones, which, as it appears, was calculated to put to shame even the most obstinate unbelief. While all the rest of Egypt is groaning under the plagues, the land of Goshen, the principal residence of the Israelites, is spared. But Pharaoh is stubborn, and still relies upon what his priests accomplished in the earlier miracles. In some cases the pressure of misery extorted from him the confession, “I have sinned against Jehovah your God, and against you,” and a demand for help; but scarcely is this granted, when the old hardness returns. Even his courtiers, compliant at other times, at last forsake him. “Let the people go,” they say, “that they may serve the Lord their God; knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?” But so terrible is the power of sin which keeps back from repentance, so formidable the power of the divine hardening which leads him who will not turn, with open eyes towards the abyss, that Pharaoh will rather let his land and people be destroyed than yield. All this was not unexpected by Moses. Before each plague God fortells him that he will harden Pharaoh, and therefore that Pharaoh will harden himself. Nevertheless Moses must always go first to Pharaoh, to repeat his demand and desire the release. The hardening of Pharaoh must be made manifest to the whole world, and therefore a looking-glass is held up in which it may see its own countenance, and at the same time God’s righteousness and omnipotence. Finally comes the decisive blow, the death of the first-born. The hardness disappears for the moment. With a strong hand Pharaoh drives out the Israelites; but they are scarcely out of his sight when he repents of his determination, the hardness which could only have been completely removed by true repentance returns, and the great drama concludes with the only conclusion worthy of it—the death of the rebel.

There are three opinions respecting the results produced by the Egyptian priests. 1. Some believe that they wrought their works by natural means, especially by sleight of hand. This view is to be found already in the book of Wis 17:7, where the works of the priests are called μαγικῆς τέχνης ἐμπαίγματα; then in Philo, where they are termed ἀνθρώπων σοφίσματα καὶ τέχνας πεπλασμένας πρὸς ἀπάτην; and in Josephus, who calls them τέχνην ἀνθρωπίνην καὶ πλάνην, Antiq. ii. 13. 3. It is specially defended by von Heumann, de Pharaonisthaumaturgis, in his Opusc. 2. Others regard these enchantments as a work of deception, due to the instrumentality of evil spirits, who so bewitched the minds of the spectators, that the things produced on them all the impression of reality. So also several of the Church Fathers; for example, Justin and Gregory of Nyssa. The former says: “But that which happened by means of the magicians was due to the efficacy of demons, who enchanted the eyes of the spectators, so that they mistook what was not a serpent for a serpent, what was not blood for blood, and what were not frogs for frogs.” 3. Others assert that the miracles were true miracles, only differing from those of Moses and Aaron by the circumstance that the latter were accomplished by the omnipotence of God, and the former by divine permission through the instrumentality of evil spirits. So, for example, Theodoret, who remarks: “God permitted the enchanters to effect something, that the distinction between those wonders which were truly divine, and those which were the result of enchantment, might be made more apparent. They change their staves into serpents, but the serpent of Moses devours theirs; they change water into blood, but are not able to change it back again, etc.” For the chastisement of Egypt, he says, God gave power to the magicians, but not in order to remove the punishment. Since the king was not content with the plagues sent by God, but commanded the magicians to increase the punishment, God punished him through their instrumentality. “Thou hast not enough in the punishment by my servants, therefore I will punish thee by thine own servants also.” That their power was only lent, is sufficiently shown by their incapacity regarding the smallest animals, the σκνῖφες. The sores on their own bodies were also a proof of lack of power. We are not at liberty to doubt that there are such miracles, say the defenders of this view, for Scripture expressly asserts it. Thus Moses speaks of the signs and wonders of false prophets, Deuteronomy 13:1. The Lord Himself says, “There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders,” Matthew 24:24. The τέρασι ψεύδους, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, are miracles done in the service and for the furtherance of deceit. Here we take occasion to remark that the lying wonders there spoken of are rather false miracles. The lying corresponds to the deceivableness in the verse which immediately follows. Of these three views, only the first and third can come under consideration, for the second is destitute of all foundation and analogy in Scripture. But which of the two views is the correct one, the narrative does not put us in a position to determine. For the object of the narrative, it is of no consequence to clear up this point. The significance of the facts remained the same, whether they were accomplished in the one way or the other. They were always means in God’s hand, which He employed to realize His decree of hardening. The shadow must always serve to throw up the light of the truly divine wonders. It is said that the priests did the things בלהטיהם, Exodus 7:11, Exodus 7:22, Exodus 8:3, Exodus 8:14; להטים or לטים are not exclusively enchantments, but generally secret arts. It is stated that the priests did the same as Moses, but nothing is said as to how they did it. When, for instance, we read, “Now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments; for they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods,”—this does not imply that the Egyptian wise men really changed ordinary rods into serpents, “dry wood into living flesh,” but only that they imitated the miracles of Moses in so illusive a way, that no difference could be proved in the outward manifestation. The record only keeps to that which passed before the eyes of the spectators. It does not trouble itself as to the nature of the arts which the wise men employed to procure rods which they could make alive. It has no object in entering into this argument. Apart from it, the victory of Moses is secure and manifest. The first view, however, must be ennobled before it can be approved of. The Egyptian wise men are by no means to be regarded as ordinary jugglers: it must of necessity be recognised that they stood in an elevated state, wherein they had at their service powers which, though certainly natural, were very unusual. This appears especially from the analogy of the serpent-charming which still exists in Egypt (comp. The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 98 sqq.). That very analogy, which evidently stands in close connection with the events in question, shows us that the theory which sees real miracles in them is untenable, the more so because one of the actions recorded has a striking relationship to what is still done by the serpent-charmers. It is said in the Descr. t. xxiv. p. 82 sqq.: “They can change the hajje, a kind of serpent, into a stick, and compel it to appear as” if dead.” If we do not regard this as a miracle, although no explanation has yet been successful and the circumstance is still veiled in mystery, then we cannot look upon these things as miracles.

Moreover, tradition has handed down to us the names of the Egyptian enchanters, which Moses does not mention. Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:8, calls them Jannes and Jambres; and we find the same names in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem; also in the Talmud, and in heathen writers, in Pliny, Apuleius, and the Pythagorean Numenius in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. ix. chap. 8. But the correctness of the tradition is not attested by the apostolic passage. The apostle plainly mentions the Egyptian magicians in a connection in which he attaches no importance to their names. He only calls them by the name current in his time. With reference to the alleged borrowing of the vessels of the Egyptians by the Israelites, there is nothing easier than to show that no such borrowing can here be meant—which nothing could justify—but that the passages in question can only be understood of spontaneous presents made by the Egyptians. The assumption of borrowing has its basis in two interpretations of words equally unfounded. 1. The verb השאיל is quite arbitrarily interpreted “to lend; שאל means in Hiphil, “to make another ask.” This, then, has reference to voluntary and unasked gifts, in contrast to such as are bestowed only from fear, or in order to get rid of importunity. He who gives voluntarily invites another, as it were, to ask, instead of being himself moved to give by the request. So in 1 Samuel 1:28, the only other passage where the Hiphil is found. 2. The verb נִצֵּל has been interpreted to steal, a meaning which it never has, but rather that of robbery, of a forcible taking away, which does not at all agree with the assumption of crafty borrowing. But in what respect could the spontaneous gift be looked upon as a robbery? How does this agree with the fact that, in the two passages, Exodus 11:2 and Exodus 12:36, it is expressly made prominent by the words, “And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians,” that, the vessels were a voluntary gift to the Hebrews, prompted by the” goodwill of the Egyptians, through the influence of God, so that fear alone cannot be regarded as the efficient cause? The only possible mode of reconciliation is this: The robber, the spoiler, is God. He who conquers in battle, carries away the booty. The author makes it prominent that the Israelites left Egypt, laden, as it were, with the spoil of their mighty enemies, as a sign of the victory which the omnipotence of God had vouchsafed to their impotence. Thus understood, the fact is not only justifiable, but appears as a necessary part of the whole: it acquires the importance which is attributed, to it in the Pentateuch, which had been foretold to Abraham, and to Moses when he was first called. One of the greatest proofs of God’s omnipotence, and of His grace towards His people, is seen in the fact that He moves the hearts of the Egyptians not merely to fear, but to love, those whom they had formerly despised, and had now so much reason to hate. The material value of the gifts was insignificant, compared with the value which they had for Israel as a sign or proof of what God can and will do for His people. The vessels of the Egyptians had become holy vessels in the strictest sense, from which we may infer that in the presentation of free-will offerings for the holy tabernacle in the wilderness, these must have formed a large proportion. Comp. Numbers 4:7, Exodus 25.

Before the exodus from Egypt three very important institutions were inaugurated by Moses, at the divine command:—(1.) He gave a law respecting the beginning of the year. In the Mosaic time, and even long afterwards, until the time of the captivity the Hebrews had no names for their months, which were only counted; the Israelites first took the names of their months from the Persians: comp. Stern and Benfey on the names of the months of some ancient nations. No single name of a month appears in the Pentateuch. Formerly the Israelites had begun the year with the later month Tisri, which corresponds to our October; from this time the current month, afterwards called Nisan, was to be their first month, as a memorial of the exodus from Egypt. Josephus says, however, in his Antiq. Jud. i. 1, chap. 3, § 3, that the change had reference only to the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, whereas the civil year began at the same time afterwards as before. It appears from Leviticus 25:9 that this happened in accordance with the design of the lawgiver, that the new beginning of the year had reference only to the character of Israel as the people of God, while the former retained its meaning for the natural side; for it is here stated that the Sabbath and jubilee year, which exercised so great an influence on the civil relations, began with the former beginning of the year, while the month of the exodus already in the law forms the beginning of the ecclesiastical year: comp. Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 9:1-2, Numbers 9:11. The new commencement of the year points to the fact that, with the deliverance of the people out of Egypt, they had arrived at a great turning-point; that with this event the nation had acquired a spiritual in addition to its natural character. (2.) The feast of the passover was instituted. This is generally regarded as a mere memorial, and it did bear that character; but such was far from forming its principal significance, just as little as the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, which corresponds to it. In true religion there cannot be a mere memorial feast. It recognises nothing as absolutely past. Its God Jehovah, the existing, the unchangeable, makes everything old new. But with special reference to the feast of the passover, the continuance of the slaughter of a lamb as an offering proves that it cannot be regarded as a mere memorial feast. The Easter lamb is expressly termed “a sacrifice,” Ex. 2:27, Exodus 23:18, Exodus 34:25. It was slaughtered in holy places, Deuteronomy 16:5 sqq.; and after the sanctuary had been erected, its blood was sprinkled and its fat burnt on the altar, 2 Chronicles 30:16-17, 2 Chronicles 35:11. The Jews have always regarded it as a sacrifice. Philo and Josephus call it θῦμα and θυσία. In a certain sense, it belonged to the class of זבחים, to those sacrifices of which the givers received a part. But this designation has reference solely to the form, to the communion here associated with the sin-offering. That it was essentially a sacrifice of atonement, appears from Exodus 12:11-12, and Exodus 22:23. Israel was to be spared in the divine punishment which broke forth over Egypt—the death of the first-born. But lest they should ascribe this exemption to their own merit, that it might not lead them to arrogance but gratitude, the deliverance was made dependent on the presentation of an offering of atonement. Whoever then, or at any time, should slaughter the paschal lamb, made a symbolical confession that he also deserved to be an object of divine wrath, but that he hoped to be released from its effect by the divine grace which accepts a substitute. Where there is a continued sacrifice, offered in faith, there must also be a continued atonement: there must be a repetition of that first benefit, which is only distinguished by the fact that it forms the starting-point of the great series—that with it this first relation of God came into life. The passover must not be placed in too direct connection with the sparing of the first-born. In harmony with its name redemption, and then atonement- or reconciliation-offering, it has to do first of all only with atonement, and the forgiveness of sins which is based on it. But where sin has disappeared, there can no longer be any punishment for sin. Again, there is no doubt that the passover stands in a certain relation to the exodus from Egypt. But here also the connection must not be made too direct. That the Lord led His people with a strong hand out of Egypt, from the house of bondage, was only a consequence and an issue of the fundamental benefit He had conferred on them by the institution of the passover-offering for atonement and forgiveness of sins. Israel was to be brought out from the bondage of the world and its fellowship. It was to be raised to the dignity of an independent people of God, separate from the heathen. But before this would or could happen, the only true wall of partition was erected between them and the world. The blood of atonement was granted to them, and in it the forgiveness of their sins. It was not without an object that the passover was held in the harvest month. The harvest was not to be touched before the feast of the passover. According to Exodus 23:19-24, comp. Leviticus 23:9 sqq., the first sheaf was to be brought to the Lord on the second day of the feast, as an acknowledgment of indebtedness to Him for the whole blessing. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” This seeking the kingdom of God consists mainly in looking for forgiveness of sins in the blood of atonement. The request for daily bread is only justified in the mouth of those who have a reconciled God. After determining the nature of the passover feast, it will not be difficult to point out its relation to circumcision. The feast of the passover presupposed circumcision. It is expressly laid down that no uncircumcised person is to eat of it. When circumcision was omitted in the wilderness at the divine command, the feast of the passover was also discontinued, and only recommenced after circumcision had been again accomplished under Joshua. By the sacrament of circumcision the people of Israel became the people of God, and every individual a member of this people; by the sacrament of the passover they received the actual divine assurance that God would not reject them on account of their sins of infirmity, that of His mercy He would forgive them, and would not withdraw His blessing from them. From this it follows that the passover, sometimes termed the feast, has quite another meaning than all the other Israelitish feasts; and also that it must precede all others. By the institution of the passover, Israel was first put fully into a condition adapted to the reception of God’s commands. That the passover lamb was not merely slaughtered but eaten, symbolized the appropriation of redeeming grace. The bitter herbs, which were eaten as vegetables, typified the sorrows by which the elect are visited for their salvation; the unleavened bread, the εἰλικρίνεια and ἀλήθεια which they must practise. For leaven is the symbol of corruption, in antiquity. That the children of Israel were obliged to eat the passover with their travelling-staves in their hands, with girded loins and shod feet, points to the zeal with which the redeemed must walk in the ways of God, and to the fact that idle rest does not become them.

3. Then followed the consecration of the first-born. This was intended to keep in remembrance throughout the whole year, what the passover, in so far as it was a memorial feast, testified once a year. The representation of the sparing of the first-born in Egypt, at the same time a pledge of future grace, was intended to penetrate the whole life. Every first-born by his simple existence proclaimed aloud the divine mercy; his consecration was an embodiment of the exhortation “Be thankful.” The manner of consecration varied, however; clean animals were offered up, clean ones compensated for the unclean, the first-born among men were redeemed. The assumption that the clean animals fell to the lot of the priests rests on a mere misunderstanding of the passage, Numbers 18:18, where it is only said that the same portions of the sacrifices of the first-born should fall to the priests which are due to them of all the heave- offerings. As of all the heave-offerings so of this also God first received His portion, then the priests, and the rest was consumed in holy feasts. In the narrative of the exodus of the Israelites our attention is first arrested by the passage, Exodus 13:21, “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, to go by day and night.” That the pillar of cloud and of fire should be mentioned just here, after the account of the arrival of the children of Israel in Etham, has no basis in chronology, but only one in fact. We stand immediately before the passage through the sea, in which the symbol of the divine presence, which was probably discontinued immediately on the Israelites’ departure, was to unfold its whole meaning. The best that has been said concerning this symbol is given by Vitringa in the treatise de Mysterio facis igneae “Israelitis in Arabia praelucentis,” in his Observv. Sacr. i. 5, 14-17. There is much, it is true, that is arbitrary and unfounded. The symbol of the divine presence first mentioned here, led the Israelites afterwards in their whole march through the wilderness. After the erection of the holy tabernacle it descended upon it. In Exodus 40:38 it is said, “The cloud was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.” With reference to the outward appearance of this symbol, it seems that we have not to think of a gross material fire: Exodus 24:17, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire.” Vitringa: “Ignis speciem habuit, veris ignis non fuit.” The pillar of cloud and of fire was not the Angel of the Lord Himself, who, on the contrary, is expressly distinguished from it, Exodus 14:19. When the Egyptians approach Israel, the Angel of the Lord first betakes himself from the head of Israel to the rear, between them and the Egyptians. Then the pillar of cloud also leaves its place, from which it appears that this was only the abode of the Angel of the Lord, the outward sign of His presence, and that He Himself was not shut up within it. Vitringa: “Vides columnae nubis jungi angelum tanquam illius hospitem eam inhabitantem.” The form is characterized by the name of a pillar. It rose, like a pillar of smoke from earth to heaven, and spread its glory by night far over the camp of the Israelites. Although a pillar of cloud and fire is generally spoken of, yet it cannot be doubted that both were one and the same phenomenon, which only presented a different aspect by day and by night. By night the fire shone out more clearly from the dark covering. Tills appears from Exodus 14:20, where one and the same cloud produces a double effect, covering the Egyptians with darkness, and at the same time illumining the camp of the Israelites. Hence it is clear that the cloudy covering was also present in the mighty symbol of the divine presence. But that the fire was not absent by day, that it was only concealed by the cloudy veil, appears from two other passages, Exodus 16:10, and Numbers 16:19, Numbers 16:35, where, on an extraordinary occasion, in order to make the presence of God felt by the Israelites, the fire, which was generally concealed by day and obscured by the sunshine, broke forth into full splendour. The pillar of cloud and of fire occupied the front of the Israelitish camp in their marches (for during the encampment it rested upon the tabernacle of the covenant); Israel, the army of God, preceded by God their general: comp. Exodus 13:21, Exodus 23:23; Deuteronomy 1:33. It showed the Israelites the direction they should take: if it moved, the people broke up their camp; if it rested, they encamped. By night it gave them light; by day, when it was more extended, it gave them protection against the heat; as it is said in Psalms 105:39, “He spread a cloud for a covering, and fire to give light in the night.” Comp. Numbers 10:34, “And the cloud of the Lord was upon them by day, when they went out of the camp;” Isaiah 4:5-6, Isaiah 25:5, where the shadow of the cloud, which at one time protected Israel, is made a symbol of God’s protection in the heat of trouble and temptation. From it all the divine commands proceeded, Numbers 12:5; Exodus 29:42-43. Destruction went forth from it upon the enemies of the people of God, as we learn from the example of the Egyptians. It frequently bears the name כבודיהוה, the glory of Jehovah, that by which God revealed His glory. It was in a lower sense what Christ was in the fullest sense: τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ. If what is related of the pillar of cloud and of fire be truth, it must prove itself as such by the fact that only the form of the thing is peculiar to the Old Testament, while its essence is common to all times. The whole must have a symbolical, prophetic character. The whole thing is treated as a prophecy. In the Messianic time God will again provide His people with a cloud by day and the splendour of flaming fire by night. Here we have a striking image of the most special providence of God in Christ, on behalf of His Church; we see how He leads His people in their wanderings through the wilderness of the world, guides and defends them, and avenges them on their enemies; how He shows them the way to the heavenly Canaan; how He protects them against the heat of misfortune and temptation; how He illumines them in the darkness of sin, error, and of misery; but also how He reveals Himself to them as consuming fire, by punishing them for their sins, and rooting out sinners from their midst. We have still to examine why this form was chosen as the symbol of the divine presence. The prevalent opinion regards the cloud only as a veil. According to 1 Tim. the concealed God dwells in φῶς ἀπρόσιτον. Even the revealed God must veil His majesty, because no mortal eye can bear the sight. But the clouds with which, or attended by which, the Lord comes, imply in all other places in Scripture the administration of judgment. Comp. Isaiah 19:1; Psalms 18:10, Psalms 97:2; Nahum 1:3; Revelation 1:7. And the correspondence of the fire by night with the cloud by day, comp. Numbers 9:15-16, proves that the cloud in the pillar of cloud and of fire bears a like threatening character. Destruction descends from the cloud upon the Egyptians, Exodus 14:24. In the pillar of cloud the Lord came down to judge Miriam and Aaron, Numbers 12:5. Isaiah 4:5-6, distinguishes a twofold element in the fire—the shining and the burning—and both appear separately in the history. At the same time fire breaks forth from the cloud for the destruction of Egypt, and light shines out upon Israel. In Scripture, light is the symbol of divine grace, fire the energy of God’s punitive justice, by which He glorifies Himself within and without the Church in those who would not glorify Him. That the fire in the cloud is not to be regarded as bringing blessing but destruction, is shown not only from the example of the Egyptians, but also from Exodus 24:17, “And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire.” Moses, Deuteronomy 4:24, characterizes God Himself as a consuming fire, with reference to this symbol, comp. Isaiah 33:14-15, Hebrews 12:29 (and what we previously said of the symbol of the burning bush). The fire, therefore, attested to Israel the same thing which was conveyed in the verbal utterance of God concerning His angel, Exodus 23:21, “Beware of Him, and obey His voice, provoke Him not; for He will not pardon your transgressions.” From this it appears that in many cases the fire breaks forth with startling splendour as the reflection of the punitive divine justice, to terrify the refractory in the camp: comp. Exodus 16:10; Numbers 14:10, Numbers 16:19, Numbers 17:7et seq. The Angel of the Lord is a reviving sun to the just; to the ungodly consuming fire. The symbol proclaimed this truth; and the history of the march through the wilderness confirmed it. But the fire, like the cloud, bears a twofold character. The threat also includes a promise. If Israel be Israel, it is directed against their enemies, while to them it is the fortress of salvation: comp. Numbers 9:15et seq. The God of energetic judgment is their God. If Israel were the people of God, then the pillar of cloud and of fire became a warning to all their enemies. ‘‘Touch not mine anointed, and do my people no harm.” Rationalism has mooted the hypothesis, that the pillar of cloud and fire was nothing more than the fire which is frequently carried before the marches of caravans in iron vessels on poles, that it may give light by night, while the smoke forms a signal by day. The origination of this fancy plainly shows how every one who has not himself experienced God’s special providence, is under the necessity of obliterating all traces of it from history. It is impossible for him who has the substance to stumble at the form, adapted as it was to the wants which the people of God then had. Exodus 14:24 serves as a refutation of this view, so far as it claims to be in harmony with the narrative itself; for according to this passage, lightning came down from the pillar of cloud upon the Egyptians: comp. also the passages just cited, where the obstinate are terrified by the sudden breaking out of fire. He who stands in the faith will draw comfort and edification from this circumstance, instead of abandoning himself to such miserable interpretations; and is thus enabled the more easily to recognise the Angel of God who goes before him also. From the stand-point of faith we must necessarily agree with Vitringa, who says: “Ecquis vero, qui divinae majestatis reverentia et termitatis humanae sensu affectus est, ut decet, non stupeat, Deum immortalem et gloriosum homines mortales tam singulari prosecutum esse elementia et gratia, ut suam iis praesentiam notabili adeo et illustri symbolo demonstrare voluerit?” This sign of the divine presence, this guarantee that God was in their midst, was the more necessary for the people of God since their leader Moses was a mere man, whose divine commission made it the more desirable that there should be a confirmation of the divine presence by means of an independent sign. It is quite different with respect to the church of the new covenant, whose head is the God-man. The accounts of the caravan-fire (best given in the Description, t. 8, p. 128) are of interest only in so far as this custom appears to be the foundation upon which the form of the symbol of the divine presence was based. The pillar of cloud and fire may be characterized as an irony of that caravan-fire. The hypothesis of Ewald, which makes the pillar of cloud and fire to have been the holy altar-fire, is perhaps still more unfortunate. His partiality for this hypothesis leads him to assume, in direct opposition to the narrative, that the pillar of cloud and fire first appeared at the erection of the holy tabernacle, and forcibly to explain away all those passages in which the pillar of cloud and fire afterwards appears outside the sanctuary; all this only in the interest of ordinary miracle-explanation, which, with him, generally plays an important part, though it does not venture to come forth openly. Above all it must not be forgotten that our source describes the pillar of cloud as it was seen with the eye of faith. It was no doubt so arranged here, as it is everywhere, that obstinate unbelief should have a handle—some apparent justification of the natural explanation of the phenomenon. We must not form too material a conception of the pillar of cloud; we must not regard it as having remained absolutely the same at all times, nor as distinctly separated from all natural phenomena. So palpable an appearance of the divine continuing for so long a period would be without analogy; and nothing in the narrative obliges us to accept it if we remember that the author’s object was not to give an accurate and detailed description of the phenomenon in all its phases and changes, for scientific purposes, but that, as a writer of sacred history, he was only concerned with its significance for the piety to which it belonged. The reason why Moses, at God’s command, did not take the Israelites by the nearest way to Canaan, through the land of the Philistines, but led them by the path through the Arabian desert, is given in Deuteronomy 13:17 : “Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” But, in order to understand the full significance of this reason, it is necessary to bring back the particular to its universal foundation. It was the lack of living, heartfelt, stedfast faith which made them incapable of fighting with the Philistines. Owing to this weakness they could not yet perform what was required of them in Deuteronomy 20:1 : “When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.” And the same lack of faith made it necessary that in many other respects also they should be first sent into the wilderness, the preparatory school. As the people of God, they were destined to possess the land of Canaan. Therefore, before the possession of it could be granted to them, they must become the people of God in spirit. In this respect they had only yet made a weak beginning. It was, therefore, impossible that they should at once be led to Canaan, the more so because divine decorum required that the ministers of divine punitive justice to the Canaanites should not themselves deserve the same punishment. The bestowal of the land on a people not much less sinful than the Canaanites, would have been an actual contradiction of the declaration that it was taken from them on account of their sins. For the covenant-people there were no purely external gifts. The exhortation was, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” The kernel and foundation of all this was the land of Canaan. How then could it be given to Israel before they had earnestly sought after the kingdom of God? It would have been severity in God to have given it to them immediately after their departure out of Egypt. For the land would soon have cast out the new inhabitants, just as it did the former, comp. Leviticus 18:28. It has been objected that the new generation showed itself still sinful in the fortieth year. But a perfectly holy people does not belong to this troubled world. The history of the time of Joshua, however, sufficiently shows that the new generation was animated by a very different spirit from that which had grown up under Egyptian influence. The passage through the Red Sea is to be regarded in a twofold aspect as the necessary conclusion of the Egyptian plagues. First, with respect to Israel. If they had departed triumphantly out of Egypt without any hindrance, with a high hand, as the text has it—i.e., frank and free—then the plagues would soon have been forgotten because of the slight point of contact which the wonderful divine manifestations still had with their minds. How much their confidence had increased, appears from the fact that they came forth from Egypt in order, in the form of an army; or, according to the source, they went out חֲמֻשִׁים—i.e., in the opinion of Ewald, in fives, separated into middle, right and left wing, front and back lines, in accordance with the simplest division of every army which is prepared for battle. But according to others, the expression means equipped in warlike trim. The human heart is refractory and desponding. When things turn out evil, despair at once sets in; when all is prosperous, false confidence and pride arise. Though previously without arms, they wished to play the soldier, and thought themselves able to overcome the world; they formed themselves into ranks as well as they could; and doubtless made a ridiculous spectacle to those among the Egyptian spectators who were skilled in war. It was time that their own weakness should be brought powerfully home to them; which happened when God put it into Pharaoh’s heart to pursue them. In order that the earlier distress and help might attain their object, the distress and help must rise once more at the exodus to the highest point; death without God, and life through God, must once again be placed in the liveliest contrast. Again, with respect to Pharaoh. The divine judgment had advanced only to the death of his first-born son. The water did not yet reach his neck. If we take into consideration the greatness of his obduracy, we see that there was still one prophecy unfulfilled—that of his death. Without this, the revelation of the divine righteousness, the type of the judgment on the world and its princes, at once strikes us as incomplete,—a mere fragment which, as such, does not carry with it the internal certainty of divine authorship. The deep significance of the passage through the sea as an actual prophecy is already recognised by the prophets, when they represent the deliverance by the Messiah and the final victory of God’s people over the world as a repetition of this event, for example, Isaiah 11:15-16. It has also been recognised by our pious singers when they make it a pledge of God’s continual guidance through sorrow to joy, through the cross to glory; comp. the song, “Um frisch hinein, es wird so tief nicht sein, das rothe Meer wird dir schon Platz vergönnen,” etc., after the example of the Psalmist in numerous passages, Psalms 114:3, etc., where the sea is specially regarded as the symbol of the power of the world, and its retreating before the children of Israel as the pledge of the victory of God’s people over the world.

We have still to consider the relation of the passage through the Red Sea to that through the Jordan. Both are closely connected. First as a justification of Israel against the Canaanites. This aspect is already brought forward in the song of praise in Exodus 15:15 : “Sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestine. Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.” As the servants of divine righteousness, the Israelites were to exterminate the Canaanites. Such a commission is not at all conceivable unless he to whom it is given receives an unquestionably divine authorization. Otherwise the greatest scope is given to human wickedness. Each one might invent such a commission, by which means that which was really divine punishment might not be recognised as such. But because the Israelites were led out from their former habitation in a marvellous way, and in a marvellous way conducted into their new habitation, it was impossible that any one should throw doubt on their divine commission. The passage through the Red Sea was to the Canaanites an actual proclamation of divine judgment. It showed them that it was not the sword of Israel, but of God, that was suspended over their heads. And because they saw it in this light their courage failed them. The passage through the Jordan could no longer come unexpected. It was already implied in the passage through the Red Sea, as its necessary complement, and must follow, if we suppose that the Jordan by its natural power placed an insuperable obstacle in the way of entrance into the promised land. For to what purpose had the Lord led the people out of Egypt? Certainly with no other object than to lead them into the land of promise. Finally, both events are closely connected in a typical aspect also. He whom God leads forth from the bondage of the world with a strong hand, has in this a pledge that God will also lead him with a strong hand into the heavenly Canaan. With respect to the mode and manner of the deliverance from Egypt, when the Israelites had once come as far as the region north of the Arabian Gulf, and therefore to the borders of Egypt, they would in all human probability have left Egypt at once, and have taken the eastern side of the Arabian Gulf. But instead of this Moses led them, at the divine command, back again, up the western side of the Arabian Gulf. If they were attacked here, they were cut off from all escape, supposing that before the attack the region north of the Red Sea was occupied, in which case there might already be an Egyptian castle here for the protection of the country against the hordes of the wilderness. Pharaoh, who had ascertained their position by means of spies, rushed into the snare that God had laid for him. If the former divine manifestations had found any response in him, his first thought would have been that this was a snare, like God’s former dealing in permitting the success of his magicians. But human judgment is swayed by inclination—a mighty proof that a just God, who takes the wise in their craftiness, has dominion over the world—and with Pharaoh inclination was always predominant. Thus he saw what he wished to see. The position of the Israelites, humanly speaking so unwisely chosen, appeared to furnish him with a certain proof that they could not be under the special guidance of divine providence, that there was no God of Israel who was at the same time God over the whole world, and that the clear proof of His existence, which he had hitherto experienced, had been only delusion and accident. The more he reproached himself with foolishness, in having yielded to them, the more he hastened to wipe out the disgrace. This was his only object; he lost sight of everything else. Here we see plainly how God befools the sinner. The operation of God forms the only key to the explanation of Pharaoh’s incomprehensible delusion; an operation which, however, was not confined to him alone, but appears daily. Without it there would be no criminal. But the conduct of the Israelites when they saw the danger before their eyes, their utter despair, as if they had never been in contact with God, is equally incomprehensible for him who is ignorant of human nature and the heart of man in its stubbornness and despondency. For him who looks deeper, all this impresses the description with the seal of truth. The place of crossing was in all probability the extreme northern limit of the gulf (Niebuhr’s Description of Arabia, p. 410), where, according to Niebuhr’s measurement, it is 757 double steps broad, and was therefore a fitting scene for the manifestation of divine miraculous power. V. Schubert, in his Travels in the East, part ii. p. 269, estimates the breadth of the Isthmus of Suez at about half an hour. There are also facts which show that the Isthmus of Suez formerly extended farther towards the north, and was broader: comp. Niebuhr, in the passages already cited, Robinson’s Palestine, i. 19, and Fr. Strauss, Journey to the East, p. 120. V. Raumer, in the March of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan, Leipzig 1837, p. 9 sqq., represents the Israelites as having gone much farther south across the gulf, by the plain Bede, where the sea is perhaps six hours’ journey across; but this view is sufficiently disproved by the circumstance that he proceeds on an erroneous determination of the place from which the Israelites set out, and of the way they took, making this determination the only basis of his assumption: comp. the copious refutation in The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 54 sqq. If it be established that the place from which the Israelites set out, Raamses, is identical with Heroöpolis, and that Heroöpolis lay north-east of the Arabian Gulf, in the vicinity of the Bitter Lakes, thirteen French hours from the Arabian Gulf, which the Israelites reached on the second day after their departure, then it is proved at the same time that the passage must have taken place not far from the extreme north. V. Raumer, who places Raamses in the neighbourhood of Heliopolis, asserts that from here to the Red Sea was a journey of twenty-six hours, which it was not possible for the Israelites to accomplish in two days. In his later work, Aids to Biblical Geography, Leipzig 1843, p. 1 sqq., and also in the third and fourth edition of The Geography of Palestine, v. Raumer himself destroys the foundation of his hypothesis, which, however, he still retains, by agreeing with the position assigned to Raamses in The Books of Moses and Egypt, afterward independently maintained by Robinson. The argument, that the way is too long for two days’ journey, he meets with the assumption that Exodus 13:20 and Numbers 33:6 refer only to the places of encampment where the Israelites remained for a longer period. But this distinction between days of journeying and places of encampment is highly improbable, so far as the march of the Israelites through Egyptian territory is concerned; for Pharaoh drove them out of the land in haste, Exodus 12:33, and their own interest demanded that they should depart with the greatest possible speed. The assertion, “It is quite incomprehensible why the Israelites should have despaired, or why a miracle should have happened, if they could have gone round that little tongue of water without any inconvenience,” does not take into consideration what is said in The Books of Moses and Egypt, p. 58, founded on Exodus 14:2, in favour of the assumption that the Egyptian garrison had blocked up the way by the north of the gulf. Here it was quite immaterial whether the Israelites went more or less south. But the view that the Israelites travelled by Bede through the sea entails great difficulties, for the passage of such immense masses could scarcely have been effected in so short a time through a sea three miles in width. Stichel, Stud. u. Krit. 1850, ii. S. 377 ff., whom Kurtz, Geschichte des A. B. ii. S. 166 ff., has incautiously followed, contests the identity of Raamses and Heroöpolis. But the objection that, in accordance with the narrative, Raamses must have lain close to the Egyptian residence, confounds the temporary dwelling-place of Pharaoh, who had repaired to the scene of events, with his usual residence. The assertion of Stichel, that Raamses is identical with Belbeis must be regarded as purely visionary; while the identity with Heroopolis has important authorities in its favour, especially the testimony of the LXX., which Stichel vainly tries to set aside. But there are decided positive reasons against the identity with Belbeis. In its interest Stichel, like v. Raumer, is obliged to assume a succession of days’ journeyings. And he himself is obliged to confess that this hypothesis is incompatible with the fact attested in Psalms 78:12, Psalms 78:43, comp. with Num. Numbers 13:22 (Numbers 13:23), that Zoan or Zanis was at that time the residence of Pharaoh. The following was the course of the catastrophe:—An east wind drove the water some distance on to the Egyptian shore, where it was absorbed by the thirsty sand, and at the same time kept back the water of the southern part of the sea, preventing it from occupying the space thus vacated, which was surrounded by water on both sides, north and south. Here again a handle was given to the unbelief of the Egyptians. In the natural means employed by God, they overlooked the work of His miraculous power. The darkness also in which they were enveloped by the cloud they regarded as merely accidental. It has been frequently maintained that the passage of the Israelites took place at the time of the ebb, while the flow engulfed the Egyptians who pursued them. This hypothesis is refuted by the fact that קדים never means or can mean the east wind; and, moreover, it is inconsistent with the oft-repeated statement that the water stood up to right and left of the Israelites, as also with the analogy of the passage through the Jordan. Besides, the Egyptians, knowing the nature of their own country, would certainly not have followed so blindly if a tide were to be expected. We must therefore give up this hypothesis, which has been recently revived by Robinson and justly opposed by v. Raumer. Moreover, the efficacy here attributed to the wind still finds its analogies: “When a continuous north wind,” says Schubert, “drives the water towards the south, especially at the time of ebb, it can be traversed northwards from Suez, and may be waded through on foot; but if the wind suddenly turns round to the south-cast,the water may rise in a short time to the height of six feet. Napoleon experienced this when he wanted to ride through the sea at that place, and was in danger of his life owing to the sudden rise of the water. When he had been safely brought back to land, he said, ‘It would have made an interesting text for every preacher in Europe if I had been drowned here.’” But God’s time had not yet come—he was still needed; afterwards he was swallowed up in Moscow.