Exodus 3

Chapters Exodus 3:1 to Exodus 6:1 First account (JE) of the call and commission of Moses Moses, in a vision at Horeb, is commissioned by Jehovah to deliver His people from their oppression in Egypt (Exodus 3:1-10). Four difficulties anticipated by him are in succession removed: Jehovah promises him His support (Exodus 3:11-12); He declares to him His name, and assures him that, when the Israelites hear that the God of their fathers has sent him, they will listen to what he tells them (Exodus 3:13-22); to meet the contingency of their refusing to do this, he is empowered to work three signs, for the purpose of satisfying them of his commission (Exodus 4:1-9); and when he objects that he has no fluency of speech, to convince or persuade doubters, his brother Aaron is appointed to speak on his behalf (Exodus 4:10-17). Moses thereupon obtains permission from Jethro to visit his brethren in Egypt; he meets Aaron in the wilderness; the two brothers return to Egypt together, and the people listen to them gladly (Exodus 4:18-31). Moses and Aaron next ask permission of the Pharaoh for the Israelites to keep a three days festival in the wilderness, but this is peremptorily refused by him (Exodus 5:1-18): Jehovah, however, promises that He will nevertheless Himself effect His people’s deliverance (Exodus 5:19 to Exodus 6:1). The narrative, when examined closely, shews marks of composition. In ch. 3 the main narrative is E (notice the frequency of God in vv. 4, 6b, 11, 12, 13a, 14a, 15a), with shorter passages from the parallel narrative of J; in Exodus 4:1 to Exodus 6:1, on the contrary, the main narrative is J, with short passages from E (see the notes on Exodus 4:17-18; Exodus 4:20 b–21, 27 f.).

Exodus 3:1-4

Exodus 3:1 to Exodus 4:17. Moses commissioned by Jehovah at Horeb to deliver His people. The dialogue between Jehovah and Moses, as in other cases (cf. Delitzsch on Genesis 12:1), must be pictured, not as one audible externally, but as giving expression,—in words which are naturally those of the narrators,—to Moses’ mental communings with God, through which he was gradually taught by Him that, in spite of the difficulties which he saw before him, he was nevertheless to be His appointed agent for accomplishing Israel’s deliverance (cf. the dialogue in Jeremiah 14-15). See further, on the sense in which God is to be understood as ‘speaking’ to a man, the Introduction, p. xlvii f.

Exodus 3:2

2. the angel of Jehovah] The ‘angel of Jehovah,’ or, in E (Exodus 14:19, Genesis 21:17; Genesis 31:11), ‘of God,’ is a temporary, but full, self-manifestation of Jehovah, a manifestation usually, at any rate, in human form, possessing no distinct and permanent personality, as such, but speaking and spoken of, sometimes as Jehovah Himself (e.g. v. 4a here, comp. with v. 2; Genesis 16:10; Genesis 16:13; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 31:13; Judges 6:12; Judges 6:14; Judges 13:21 f.), and sometimes as distinct from Him (e.g. Genesis 16:11; Genesis 19:13; Genesis 19:21; Genesis 19:24; Genesis 21:17; Numbers 22:31): cf. Gray, EB. iv., Theophany, § 4. As Davidson remarks (DB. i. 94b, s.v. Angel), the ‘angel of Jehovah’ differs from ‘Jehovah’ only in being sensibly manifest: ‘the mere manifestation creates a distinction between the “angel of Jehovah” and “Jehovah,” though the identity remains.’ The angel of Jehovah is mentioned chiefly in the older parts of the historical books, J, E (never P), and the older narratives in Judges (Exodus 2:1; Exodus 2:4, Exodus 5:23, Exodus 6:11 f., Exodus 20-22, Exodus 13:3-21). a flame of fire] A frequent form of the Divine manifestation (Exodus 19:18, Exodus 24:17; Ezekiel 1:27; Ezekiel 8:2; and in the ‘pillar of fire,’ Exodus 13:21 f.). On the present occasion, however, the fire was not a ‘devouring’ fire, but only the brilliancy of fire. Cf. Hom. Od. xix.39 f. (Kn.). out of, &c.] i.e. rising up out of the bush. a bush] only besides Deuteronomy 33:16 ‘the favour of him that dwelt in the bush.’ Properly, as Aram. shews (PS. 2671; Lφw, Aram. Pflanzennamen, No. 219), the bramble bush, rubus fruticosus, Linn. (so LXX. βάτος, [Luke 6:44], Vulg. rubus), which however does not seem to grow in the Sin. Peninsula.

Exodus 3:3

3. Moses would fain approach nearer, and learn the reason of the marvel, why the bush was not consumed. Moses, Moses] The duplication, as Genesis 22:11; Genesis 46:2 (both E).

Exodus 3:4

4. And when, &c.] In the Heb., And Jehovah saw …, and God called, &c., to which the division of sources does no violence.

Exodus 3:5

5. shoes] properly (as always) sandals. Cf. Joshua 5:15 (J). The removal of the sandals is still the usual mark of reverence, upon entering a mosque, or other holy place, in the East.

Exodus 3:6-10

6–10. God declares His purpose of delivering His people.

Exodus 3:7

7. seen the affliction] Exodus 4:31; Genesis 31:42; Deuteronomy 26:7 al. taskmasters] The Egyptian superintendents of the labour-gangs, or corvιe (see on Exodus 1:11). Properly hard-pressers, rendered driver in Job 39:7; oppressor in Isaiah 3:12; Isaiah 9:4; Isaiah 14:2; and exactor in Daniel 11:20 (cf. exact for the cognate verb, Deuteronomy 15:2-3): LXX. here ἐργοδιωκταί. So ch. Exodus 5:6; Exodus 5:10; Exodus 5:13-14. Not the expression used in Exodus 1:11.

Exodus 3:8

8. am come down] from heaven. A frequent anthropomorphism in J: cf. Genesis 11:5; Genesis 11:7; also Exodus 19:11; Exodus 19:18; Exodus 19:20; Exodus 34:5. a land flowing with milk and honey] a frequent designation of Canaan in the Pent.: in J (here, v. 17, Exodus 13:5, Exodus 33:3, Numbers 13:27; Numbers 14:8; Numbers 16:13 [of Egypt], 14): the compiler of H (Leviticus 20:24); Deuteronomy 6:3; Deuteronomy 11:9; Deuteronomy 26:9; Deuteronomy 26:15; Deuteronomy 27:3; Deuteronomy 31:20; also Joshua 5:6 (D2[103]); Jeremiah 11:5; Jeremiah 32:22; Ezekiel 20:6; Ezekiel 20:15†. Milk is an essential article of diet in the East, especially among an agricultural people: ‘honey’ includes probably not only the honey of bees, but also what is now called by the corresponding name in Arabic dibs, i.e. grape juice, boiled down to a dark golden-brown syrup, intensely sweet, and much used in Palestine as a condiment to food (cf. DB. ii. 32b; EB. ii. 2015). [103] Deuteronomic passages in Josh., Jud., Kings.of the Canaanite, &c.] Such rhetorical lists of the nations of Canaan whom the Israelites were to dispossess are frequent, esp. in the Hexateuch, in JE and Deuteronomic writers; see (in JE) Genesis 15:19-21 (where ten are named); Exodus 3:17; Exodus 13:5; Exodus 23:23; Exodus 23:28; Exodus 33:2; Exodus 34:11; Deuteronomy 7:1 (seven), Exodus 20:17; Joshua 3:10; Joshua 9:1; Joshua 11:3; Joshua 12:8; Joshua 24:11 (all D2[104]); Judges 3:5; 1 Kings 9:20. [104] Deuteronomic passages in Josh., Jud., Kings.the Canaanite] more particularly, it seems (see Numbers 13:29), the inhabitants of the sea-coast, and of the Jordan-valley: but the term is often used, esp. by J (e.g. Genesis 12:6), in a wider sense, of the pre-Israelitish population of Canaan generally (see further the writer’s note on Deuteronomy 1:6, p. 11 f., and Canaan in EB.). the Hittite] The ‘Hittites,’1[105] as inscriptions now abundantly shew, were a great nation, whose home was N. of Phoenicia and Lebanon, Kadesh on the Orontes being one of their principal cities (see Hittites in EB. and DB.; or, more briefly, the writer’s note on Genesis 10:15; and cf. 1 Kings 10:29; 1 Kings 11:1, 2 Kings 7:6): but these Hittites were never conquered by the Israelites, and so cannot be referred to here. The reference may be to an offshoot settled in the far N. of Canaan (Judges 1:26; Judges 3:3 [read Hittite for Hivite]; Joshua 11:3 [interchange, with LXX., Hittite and Hivite]); but a belief appears gradually to have sprung up,—though how far it is grounded on fact is difficult to say (see the writer’s Book of Genesis, pp. 228–30),—that there were once Hittites in the more southerly hill-country of Canaan (Numbers 13:29 in JE), and even in Hebron (Genesis 23 [P]); and it is possible that this is the view expressed in these enumerations. [105] See now most fully Garstang’s Land of the Hittites (1910).the Amorite] in the Tel el-Amarna letters (c. 1400 b.c.), the ‘land of Amurri’ is mentioned in such a way as to shew that it was the name of a canton, or district, N. of Canaan, behind Phoenicia2[106]. By the time of the Hebrew occupation, the Amorites appear to have extended themselves southwards; and so, in the OT., the term is used in two connexions: (1) Numbers 21:13 and often, of the people ruled by Sihon on the E. and NE. of the Dead Sea; (2) as a general designation of the pre-Israelitish population of the country W. of Jordan (so esp. in E and Dt., as Genesis 15:6, Deuteronomy 1:7, cf. Amos 2:9-10),—in Numbers 13:29 said specially to have inhabited the hill-country. [106] See Hogarth’s Authority and Archaeology, p. 73 f.; or the writer’s Genesis, p. 125. It appears now that the Amurri extended eastwards much further than was once supposed: see the writer’s Schweich Lectures (1909), p. 36.the Perizzite] named alone in Joshua 17:15; by the side of the ‘Canaanite’ only, Genesis 13:7; Genesis 34:30, Judges 1:4-5; and found also in many of the lists cited above. To judge from the first-cited passages, apparently a people of Central Palestine; but more is not definitely known of them. It is thought by some that the word is not a proper name at all, but that it is connected with perâzî, ‘country-folk,’ ‘peasantry’ (Deuteronomy 3:5 ‘besides the towns of the peasantry’; 1 Samuel 6:18 ‘the villages of the peasantry’), and denoted the village population of Canaan, the fellaḥ ?in (or ‘labourers’ of the soil), as they are now called. the Hivite] a petty people of Central Palestine: Genesis 34:2 (in Shechem); Joshua 9:7; Joshua 11:19 (in Gibeon). the Jebusite] the tribe which occupied the stronghold of Jerusalem, and maintained themselves there until expelled by David (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 15:63, 2 Samuel 5:6-9).

Exodus 3:9

9. is come unto me] Genesis 18:21.

Exodus 3:10

10. Now therefore [Heb. And now = Quae quum ita sint] come. Genesis 31:44; Genesis 37:20; Numbers 22:6 al. 11 ff. In his youth (ch. 2) Moses was confident and impulsive: but now ‘a fugitive and a shepherd, without influence or position’ (Kn., Di.), the greatness of the task laid before him makes him distrustful of his powers to undertake it. Accordingly the narrative which follows describes how four difficulties felt and urged by Moses are successively removed by Jehovah, vv. 11–12, 13–22, Exodus 4:1-17. Moses’ reluctance to undertake the difficult task laid upon him is emphasised, it may be observed, by each narrator, by E in Exodus 3:11 ff., by J in Exodus 4:10-12, and by P in Exodus 6:12, Exodus 7:1.

Exodus 3:11-12

11–12. Moses’ first difficulty: he is unsuited either to treat with Pharaoh, or to become the leader of his people. Cf. Judges 6:15.

Exodus 3:12

12. In reply God assures him that He will be with him and support him: cf. Genesis 28:15; Genesis 31:3; Joshua 1:5; Joshua 3:7; and especially Judges 6:16. ‘Certainly,’ like ‘Surely’ in Jud. l.c., is better omitted: the Heb. ki is like the Greek ὅ ?ôé recitativum (Lex. 471b b). token] The word usually rendered ‘sign,’ as Exodus 4:8; Exodus 4:17, Isaiah 7:11, &c. The word means here evidence or proof, as Judges 6:17, 1 Samuel 14:10, 2 Kings 20:9 : and with reference to something not to be realised immediately, 1 Samuel 2:34, Isaiah 7:11; Isaiah 37:30. The promise, given with all assurance, that the liberated people would worship God on the very mountain on which he was standing, though its full cogency could not be perceived till it was fulfilled, was a guarantee to Moses that God had really sent him. that I have sent thee] The pron. is emphatic. upon this mountain] The mountain which is God’s abode: cf. v. 1, Exodus 19:3 a, 4b.

Exodus 3:13-22

13–22. Moses’ second difficulty: his ignorance of the name of the God who has sent him. In reply, he is told what the name is; and is reassured with regard both to his being listened to by the Israelites (v. 18a), and to his securing ultimately the deliverance of his people (vv. 21–22). In ancient times, every deity had his own personal name; and it was of importance to know what this name was; for only if it were known, could the deity who bore it be approached in prayer and appealed to for help; the name was also often an indication of the nature and character of the deity whom it denoted. Cf. DB. v. 640b; also iv. 604a, v. 181a; and see, for illustrations, L. R. Farnell, The Evolution of Religion (1905), pp. 184–192, Frazer, Golden Bough2, i. 441 ff.

Exodus 3:14

14. I will be that I will be (3rd marg.)] The words are evidently intended as an interpretation of the name Yahweh, the name,—which in form is the third pers. imperf. of a verb (just like Isaac, Jacob, Jephthah), meaning He is wont to be or He will be,—being interpreted, as Jehovah is Himself the speaker, in the first person. The rendering given appears to the present writer, as it appeared to W. R. Smith, and A. B.

Davidson, to give the true meaning of the Heb. ’Ehyeh ’γsher ’ehyeh: Jehovah promises that He will be, to Moses and His people, what He will be,—something which is undefined, but which, as His full nature is more and more completely unfolded by the lessons of history and the teaching of the prophets, will prove to be more than words can express. The explanation is thus of a character to reassure Moses. See further the separate note, p. 40. Additional Note on Exodus 3:14 The following are the reasons which lead the present writer to agree with W. R. Smith1[109] and A. B. Davidson2[110] in adopting the rend. I will be that I will be for ’Ehyeh ’γsher ’ehyeh. In the first place the verb hβyβh expresses not to be essentially, but to be phaenomenally; it corresponds to γίγνομαι not εἶναι; it denotes, in Delitzsch’s words, not the idea of inactive, abstract existence, but the active manifestation of existence. Secondly the imperfect tense used expresses not a fixed, present state (‘I am’), but action, either reiterated (habitual) or future, i.e. either I am wont to be or I will be.

Whichever rend. be adopted, it is implied (1) that Jehovah’s nature can be defined only in terms of itself (‘I am wont to be that I am wont to be,’ or ‘I will be that I will be’), and (2) that, while He is, as opposed to non-existent heathen deities, He exists, not simply in an abstract sense (‘I am that I Amos 3[111]’; LXX. ἐγώεἰμιὁὤν), but actively: He either is wont to be what He is wont to be, i.e. is ever in history manifesting Himself anew to mankind, and especially to Israel4[112]; or He will be what He will be, i.e. He will,—not, of course, once only, but habitually,—approve Himself to His people as ‘what He will be’; as what is not further defined, or defined only in terms of Himself, but, it is understood, as what He has promised, and they look for, as their helper, strengthener, deliverer, &c.5[113] The two renderings do not yield a substantially different sense: for what is wont to be does not appreciably differ from what at any moment will be. I will be is however the preferable rendering. As both W. R. Smith and Davidson point out, the important thing to bear in mind is that ’ehyeh expresses not the abstract, metaphysical idea of being, but the being of Yahweh as revealed and known to Israel. ‘The expression I will be is a historical formula; it refers, not to what God will be in Himself: it is no predication regarding His essential nature, but one regarding what He will approve Himself to others, regarding what He will shew Himself to be to those in convenant with Him,’ as by His providential guidance of His people, and the teaching of His prophets, His character and attributes were more and more fully unfolded to them1[114]. [109] In an interesting article in the Brit. and Foreign Evang. Rev. 1876, p. 163. [110] The Theology of the OT. (1904), pp. 46, 54–58; more briefly in DB. ii. 199b. [111] A translation, as Davidson remarks (p. 55), ‘doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present [i.e. a real ‘present,’ not the ‘present,’ as often in English, expressive of habit], and the idea is wrong, because am is used in the sense of essential being.’ [112] So Delitzsch, Genesis, ed. 4 (1872), p. 26; in the New Commentary of 1887 (translated) towards the end of the note on Exodus 2:4 : Oehler, OT. Theol. § 39. Comp. the present writer in Studia Biblica, i (1885), pp. 15–18. [113] So W. R. Smith and A. B. Davidson, ll.cc. [114] The rend. will be is not new: it is at least as old as the Jewish Commentator Rashi (a.d. 1040–1105), who paraphrases, ‘I will be with them in this affliction what I will be with them in the subjection of their future captivities.’ And Ewald, in his last work, Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott, 1873, ii. p. 337 f., explains, ‘I will be it,’ viz. the performer of My promises; in v. 12 God says ‘I will be with thee’; v. 14 explains how: ‘I will be it! I (viz.) who will be it,’ will be viz. what I have promised and said. This, however, as W. R. Smith remarks, is a clumsy version: v. 14 is rendered far more naturally as is done above: I will be what I will be.I am] better, as before, I will be.

Exodus 3:15

15. Yahweh, the Israelites are to be told, is the name of the God of their fathers, who has sent Moses to them. this is my name, &c.] The sentence, with its two parallel clauses, has a poetical tinge: the Heb. for ‘to all generations,’ also, occurs elsewhere only Proverbs 27:24 Kt. Cf. Psalms 135:13. memorial] The Heb. zçker means usually ‘remembrance’ (e.g. Exodus 17:14): here it is a poet. synonym of ‘name’; so Hosea 12:5; Psalms 30:4 = Psalms 97:12 (see RVm.); Isaiah 26:8.

Exodus 3:16-18

16–18. Moses is to gather together the elders of Israel, and communicate to them God’s purpose to lead His people into Canaan: they will listen to him; and the Pharaoh is then to be asked to allow a pilgrimage to worship Jehovah in the wilderness.

Exodus 3:17

17. said] i.e. as often, said mentally = resolved. bring you up] from the low-lying land of Egypt into the high ground of Canaan. So regularly (cf. Exodus 1:10).

Exodus 3:18

18. shall hearken] rather, will hearken. In EVV. ‘shall’ (in the 3rd person), and ‘shalt’ are often used where a command is out of place, and where we should now say will, wilt. the God of the Hebrews] as opposed to the gods of the Egyptians. So Exodus 5:3; Exodus 7:16; Exodus 9:1; Exodus 9:13; Exodus 10:3 (all in the same narrative, J; cf. p. 56). met with us] or, lighted upon us,—viz. in a sudden, unexpected way. Son 5:3; cf. Numbers 23:3-4; Numbers 23:15-16. Rendered happened or chanced in 2 Samuel 1:6; 2 Samuel 18:9; 2 Samuel 20:1. three days’ journey] Probably a current expression for a considerable distance (Genesis 30:36): they ask to be allowed to worship their national God, with such rites as He may enjoin (Exodus 8:27), at some distant spot in the wilderness where they could give no offence to the Egyptians (Exodus 8:26). The ‘wilderness’ would be the broad and arid limestone plateau, now called et-Tih, extending from the E. border of Egypt to the S. of Palestine, and bounded on the S. by the mountains of the Sinaitic Peninsula. In an age in which every people had its own god, or gods, whom they worshipped in their own special way, a request to be allowed to make such a pilgrimage would seem quite natural. In the form, Let my people go, that they may serve me, it is repeated in the sequel of J seven times (see on Exodus 4:23); comp. also Exodus 5:3; Exodus 10:7-11; Exodus 10:24-26. In what sense is the request meant? If, as has been supposed, it was intended merely as an excuse for getting a good start for their subsequent flight, then it was clearly a case of deception: the Israelites would in this case have sought to obtain from the Pharaoh by a ruse what, if he had known their entire purpose, he would not have granted. It is not however said that, if the request had been acceded to, they would not have returned, when the three days’ festival was over: so it may have been intended merely (Di.) to test the feeling of the Pharaoh towards the Israelites; to serve their God in their own way was in itself ‘the smallest request that subjects could make of their ruler’; and if this request had been viewed by the Pharaoh favourably, the door might have been opened for further negotiations, and the people might eventually have been allowed to depart altogether: the request was not granted, and so it resolved itself in the end into a demand for the unconditional release of the people and their actual departure.

Exodus 3:19-20

19–20. But the Pharaoh will not let Israel go, till the Egyptians have experienced the power of Jehovah’s hand.

Exodus 3:20

20. wonders] Exodus 34:10, Joshua 3:5.

Exodus 3:21-22

21–22. Not only will the Egyptians then let the Israelites go, but God will give them favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they will bestow many valuables upon them. The verses, it is evident, must belong to the narrator who regards the Israelites as settled among the Egyptians themselves (i.e. E), not to J, who (see on Exodus 8:22) represents them as living apart in the land of Goshen.

Exodus 3:22

22. sojourneth] probably, as a slave or hired servant: cf. Job 19:15 (RVm.), and on ch. Exodus 12:48. put them upon] as ornaments; cf. Genesis 24:47; Genesis 41:42. This remarkable incident is referred to twice again: in Exodus 11:2 f., where the people are directly commanded to make the request, and Exodus 12:35 f., where the occurrence itself is narrated. ‘According to the tradition (‘Sage’) as handed down by E, the Israelites at their departure received from their Egyptian acquaintances, who were favourably disposed towards them, and held Moses in honour (see Exodus 11:3), all kinds of valuables. For what purpose is not, in the present text, stated: probably as ornaments and festal attire for the feast, such as it was usual to wear on such occasions (Hosea 2:13). It is at the same time possible that according to the original intention of the legend, the valuables, which the Israelites used for their sanctuary (Exodus 33:6; Exodus 35:22 f.), were to be regarded as spoil won from the Egyptians. But as it now stands, the chief stress appears to rest on the consideration that through God’s providence the Israelites were enriched at the expense of their oppressors, and gained as it were a sort of prize of victory as a compensation for their long oppression’ (Dillm.: similarly Ewald, Hist. ii. 65 f.). See further on Exodus 12:36.