Exodus · Chapter 3

ver. 1-5.

II. A general declaration of God’s goodwill to his people, who were beloved for the Father’s sake, ver. 6.

III. A particular notification of God’s purpose concerning the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. 1. He assures Moses it should now be done, ver. 7-9. 2. He gives him a commission to act in it as his ambassador both to Pharaoh, ver. 10, and to Israel, ver. 16. 3. He answers the objection Moses made of his own unworthiness, ver. 11, 12. 4. He gives him full instructions what to say, both to Pharaoh and to Israel, ver. 13-18. 5. He tells him before-hand what the issue would be, ver. 14-22.

V. 1. Now Moses-The years of Moses’s life are remarkably divided into three forties; the first forty he spent as a prince in Pharaoh’s court, the second a shepherd in Midian, the third a king in Jeshurun. He had now finished his second forty when he received his commission to bring Israel out of Egypt. Sometimes it is long before God calls his servants out to that work which of old he designed them for. Moses was born to be Israel’s deliverer, and yet not a word is said of it to him till he is eighty years of age. Even to Horeb-Horeb and Sinai were two tops of the same mountain.

Verse 1. Jethro his father-in-law] Concerning Jethro, see Clarke’s note on “Exodus 2:18”. Learned men are not agreed on the signification of the word חתנ chothen, which we translate father-in-law, and which in Genesis 19:14, we translate son-in-law. It seems to be a general term for a relative by marriage, and the connection only in which it stands can determine its precise meaning. It is very possible that Reuel was now dead, it being forty years since Moses came to Midian; that Jethro was his son, and had succeeded him in his office of prince and priest of Midian; that Zipporah was the sister of Jethro; and that consequently the word חתנ chothen should be translated brother-in-law in this place: as we learn from Genesis 34:9; Deuteronomy 7:3; Joshua 23:12, and other places, that it simply signifies to contract affinity by marriage. If this conjecture be right, we may well suppose that, Reuel being dead, Moses was continued by his brother-in-law Jethro in the same employment he had under his father.

Mountain of God] Sometimes named Horeb, at other times Sinai. The mountain itself had two peaks; one was called Horeb, the other Sinai. Horeb was probably the primitive name of the mountain, which was afterwards called the mountain of God, because God appeared upon it to Moses; and Mount Sinai, ynys, from hns seneh, a bush, because it was in a bush or bramble, in a flame of fire, that this appearance was made.

1-5.

(2,) A general declaration of God’s good-will to his people, who were beloved for their fathers’ sake, 6.

(3,) A particular notification of God’s purpose concerning the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. 1, He assures Moses it should now be done, 7-9. 2, He gives him a commission to act in it as his ambassador both to Pharaoh, 10, and to Israel, 16. 3, He answers the objection Moses made of his own unworthiness, 11, 12. 4, He gives him full instructions what to say, both to Pharaoh and to Israel, 13-18. 5. He tells him beforehand what the issue would be, 14-22. NOTES ON CHAPTER 3.

Verse 1. Now Moses — The years of Moses’s life are remarkably divided into three forties; the first forty he spent as a prince in Pharaoh’s court, the second a shepherd in Midian, the third a king in Jeshurun. He had now finished his second forty when he received his commission to bring Israel out of Egypt. Sometimes it is long before God calls his servants out to that work which of old he designed them for. Moses was born to be Israel’s deliverer, and yet not a word is said of him till he is eighty years of age. To the mountain of God — So called, either from the vision of God here following, (see Acts 7:30,) or by anticipation, from God’s glorious appearance there, and his giving the law from thence. Even to Horeb — Called also Sinai, Exodus 19:1. Probably Horeb was the name of the whole tract of mountains, and Sinai the name of that particular elevation where the vision happened, and the law was delivered: or Horeb and Sinai were two different summits of the same mountain.

Verse 1. Horeb and Sinai are the same mountain, almost surrounded by two branches of the Red sea. But it has two summits, Sinai on the east, and Horeb on the west. Justinian built a monastery here, and made it the seat of a bishop. They show strangers the identical spot where Moses, by the Lord’s command, caused the waters to flow. The Mussulmans have this place in very great veneration.

JEHOVAH IN THE BURNING BRAMBLE, 1-6.

1. Now Moses kept the flock — Rather, Was feeding the flock. The Hebrew word expresses a continued occupation. Reuel-Jethro, or Reuel the excellent, was priest of Midian, and father of Zipporah and Hobab. See Concluding Note, chap. 2. To the backside — That is, the western side, for in the Hebrew orientation the spectator is always supposed to face the east, which is hence called “the front,” while the south is the “right hand,” as in 1 Samuel 23:19, margin, and the north is “the left hand,” as in Genesis 14:15. Moses led his flock westerly or northwesterly, through the desert strip, to the elevated ground of Horeb, where were the most fertile valleys of the peninsula, and where there was water when the lower lands were dry. The desert of Arabia is not a hot, sandy plain, like the deserts of Africa, but a very uneven, rocky, gravel-covered tract, which, except in summer, furnishes fair pasturage for flocks. Perhaps the approach of midsummer caused this movement. The mountain of God. So called from God’s subsequent manifestation there; or, as the Targumists express it, “the mountain on which was revealed the glory of Jah.” Moses wrote this after the giving of the law at Sinai. Horeb — This was the name of the whole mountain cluster of which Sinai was a single summit. The two words are used interchangeably to denote the Mount of the Law; but before Israel reached the mountain district, as here — and after they left it, as in Deuteronomy, when they were encamped in the plains of Moab — it is called Horeb, since at a distance the special summit is not particularized; but while before the Mount of the Law it is always (except only in Exodus 33:6) called Sinai, since, while among the mountains, it was necessary to specify the particular peak intended. Moses smote the rock in Horeb (the district) before they reached Sinai, the mountain. Exodus 17:1-6. (ROBINSON, Bib. Res., 1:120.)

V. 2. And the angel of the Lord appeared to him-It was an extraordinary manifestation of the divine glory; what was visible was produced by the ministry of an angel, but he heard God in it speaking to him. In a flame of fire-To shew that God was about to bring terror and destruction to his enemies, light and heat to his people, and to display his glory before all. And the bush burned, and yet was not consumed-An emblem of the church now in bondage in Egypt, burning in the brick-kilns, yet not consumed; cast down, but not destroyed.

Verse 2. The angel of the Lord] Not a created angel certainly; for he is called hwhy Jehovah, Exodus 3:4, &c., and has the most expressive attributes of the Godhead applied to him, Exodus 3:14, &c. Yet he is an angel, Ëalm malach, a messenger, in whom was the name of God, Exodus 23:21; and in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians 2:9; and who, in all these primitive times, was the Messenger of the covenant, Malachi 3:1. And who was this but JESUS, the Leader, Redeemer, and Saviour of mankind? See Clarke’s note on “Genesis 16:7”.

A flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush] Fire was, not only among the Hebrews but also among many other ancient nations, a very significant emblem of the Deity. God accompanied the Israelites in all their journeyings through the wilderness as a pillar of fire by night; and probably a fire or flame in the holy of holies, between the cherubim, was the general symbol of his presence; and traditions of these things, which must have been current in the east, have probably given birth, not only to the pretty general opinion that God appears in the likeness of fire, but to the whole of the Zoroastrian system of fire-worship. It has been reported of Zoroaster, or Zeradusht, that having retired to a mountain for the study of wisdom, and the benefit of solitude, the whole mountain was one day enveloped with flame, out of the midst of which he came without receiving any injury; on which he offered sacrifices to God, who, he was persuaded, had then appeared to him. M. Anquetil du Perron gives much curious information on this subject in his Zend Avesta. The modern Parsees call fire the off-spring of Ormusd, and worship it with a vast variety of ceremonies. Among the fragments attributed to Æschylus, and collected by Stanley in his invaluable edition of this poet, p. 647, col. 1, we find the following beautiful verses:—

Cwrize qnhtwn ton qeon, kai mh dokei

JOmoion autw sapkinon kaqestanai.

Ouk oisqa dJ auton\ pote men wv pur fainetai

Aplaston ormh\ pote dJ udwr, pote de gnofov.

“Distinguish God from mortal men; and do not suppose that any thing fleshly is like unto him. Thou knowest him not: sometimes indeed he appears as a formless and impetuous FIRE, sometimes as water, sometimes as thick darkness.” The poet proceeds:—

Tremei dJ orh, kai gaia, kai peleriov

Buqov qalasshv, kwrewn uyov mega,

JOtan epibleyh gorgon omma despotou.

“The mountains, the earth, the deep and extensive sea, and the summits of the highest mountains tremble whenever the terrible eye of the Supreme Lord looks down upon them.”

These are very remarkable fragments, and seem all to be collected from traditions relative to the different manifestations of God to the Israelites in Egypt, and in the wilderness. Moses wished to see God, but he could behold nothing but an indescribable glory: nothing like mortals, nothing like a human body, appeared at any time to his eye, or to those of the Israelites. “Ye saw no manner of similitude,” said Moses, “on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the FIRE,” Deuteronomy 4:15. But sometimes the Divine power and justice were manifested by the indescribable, formless, impetuous, consuming flame; at other times he appeared by the water which he brought out of the flinty rock; and in the thick darkness on Horeb, when the fiery law proceeded from his right hand, then the earth quaked and the mountain trembled: and when his terrible eye looked out upon the Egyptians through the pillar of cloud and fire, their chariot wheels were struck off, and confusion and dismay were spread through all the hosts of Pharaoh; Exodus 14:24, 25.

And the bush was not consumed.] 1. An emblem of the state of Israel in its various distresses and persecutions: it was in the fire of adversity, but was not consumed. 2. An emblem also of the state of the Church of God in the wilderness, in persecutions often, in the midst of its enemies, in the region of the shadow of death-yet not consumed. 3. An emblem also of the state of every follower of Christ: cast down, but not forsaken; grievously tempted, but not destroyed; walking through the fire, but still unconsumed! Why are all these preserved in the midst of those things which have a natural tendency to destroy them! Because GOD IS IN THE MIDST OF THEM; it was this that preserved the bush from destruction; and it was this that preserved the Israelites; and it is this, and this alone, that preserves the Church, and holds the soul of every genuine believer in the spiritual life. He in whose heart Christ dwells not by faith, will soon be consumed by the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Verse 2. The Angel of the Lord appeared to him — Not a created angel, but the Angel of the covenant, Christ, who then and ever was God, and was to be man, and a messenger from God to man. He, termed the Angel of God’s presence, (Isaiah 63:9,) had wrestled with Jacob, (Genesis 32:24;) and had redeemed him from all evil, (Genesis 48:16;) and afterward conducted his posterity through the wilderness, 1 Corinthians 10:4. These his temporary appearances were presages of his more solemn mission and coming, on account of which he is fitly called the Angel or Messenger. That this angel was no creature, appears from his saying, I am the Lord, a language which angels never speak; but, I am sent from God — I am thy fellow-servant. In a flame of fire — Representing God’s majesty, purity, and power, and showing that he was about to bring terror and destruction to his enemies, and light and comfort to his people, and to display his glory before all. The bush burned and was not consumed — An emblem of the church now in bondage in Egypt, burning in the brick-kilns, yet not consumed; cast down, but not destroyed; for God was in the burning bush, was and always will be present with his people in their sufferings; Isaiah 43:2; Daniel 3:25.

Ver. 2. Angel of the Lord. Malack, the messenger, the angel of the covenant. Malachi 3:1.

2. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him — More literally, “And there appeared an angel of Jahveh (Jehovah) unto him.” In a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush — Rather, “the thorn-bush,” (bramble.) Any personification or manifestation of God’s attributes is called his “angel.” See on Genesis 16:7. The hns, seneh, “thorn-bush,” or “bramble,” is a species of acacia, common in the Sinai peninsula, rising in tangled thickets, and having long, stout, and sharp thorns. It is here called the bramble — definitely — as the well-known desert bramble, or as the bramble of this divine appearance. Sinai was probably named from this seneh (senna) shrub, which abounds upon its sides and valleys. The shittah, or shittim tree, used so much in the construction of the tabernacle and its furniture, belongs to the same family. And behold, the bush burned with fire, and… was not consumed — Better, And lo, the bramble was burning in the fire, and the bramble was not consumed. The common lowly bramble well typifies despised Israel in its servitude, and the fire that burst forth among the dry thorns and yet did not consume them, was the God who dwelt in Israel, under whose providence those afflictions came, which, though they burned did not destroy, because He, the change-less JEHOVAH, was in their midst. It is ever in the extremity of his Israel’s affliction that his voice is heard from the flame. The “great sight,” which faith only sees, is God’s loving tenderness, burning but to purify. This is the truth which, in the MEMORIAL NAME, breaks upon the soul of Moses after his long and mysterious trial.

V. 3. I will turn aside and see-He speaks as one inquisitive, and bold in his inquiry; whatever it was, he would if possible know the meaning of it.

Verses 3, 4. I will turn aside and see — He speaks as one inquisitive and bold in his inquiry: whatever it was, he would, if possible, know the meaning of it. God called to him, and said, Moses, Moses — Probably there had been no appearance of God to any one since Jacob’s descent into Egypt, above two hundred years before: and Moses, being addressed thus by name, must have been much more surprised by what he heard than by what he saw. Divine calls are then effectual when the Spirit of God makes them particular, and calls us as by name. He said, Here am I — Not only to hear what is spoken, but to do what is commanded.

JEHOVAH IN THE BURNING BRAMBLE, 1-6.

1. Now Moses kept the flock — Rather, Was feeding the flock. The Hebrew word expresses a continued occupation. Reuel-Jethro, or Reuel the excellent, was priest of Midian, and father of Zipporah and Hobab. See Concluding Note, chap. 2. To the backside — That is, the western side, for in the Hebrew orientation the spectator is always supposed to face the east, which is hence called “the front,” while the south is the “right hand,” as in 1 Samuel 23:19, margin, and the north is “the left hand,” as in Genesis 14:15. Moses led his flock westerly or northwesterly, through the desert strip, to the elevated ground of Horeb, where were the most fertile valleys of the peninsula, and where there was water when the lower lands were dry. The desert of Arabia is not a hot, sandy plain, like the deserts of Africa, but a very uneven, rocky, gravel-covered tract, which, except in summer, furnishes fair pasturage for flocks. Perhaps the approach of midsummer caused this movement. The mountain of God. So called from God’s subsequent manifestation there; or, as the Targumists express it, “the mountain on which was revealed the glory of Jah.” Moses wrote this after the giving of the law at Sinai. Horeb — This was the name of the whole mountain cluster of which Sinai was a single summit. The two words are used interchangeably to denote the Mount of the Law; but before Israel reached the mountain district, as here — and after they left it, as in Deuteronomy, when they were encamped in the plains of Moab — it is called Horeb, since at a distance the special summit is not particularized; but while before the Mount of the Law it is always (except only in Exodus 33:6) called Sinai, since, while among the mountains, it was necessary to specify the particular peak intended. Moses smote the rock in Horeb (the district) before they reached Sinai, the mountain. Exodus 17:1-6. (ROBINSON, Bib. Res., 1:120.)

V. 4. When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see it, God called to him-If he had carelessly neglected it, it is likely God had departed and said nothing to him. God called and said, Moses, Moses-This which he heard could not but surprise him much more than what he saw. Divine calls are then effectual, when the spirit of God makes them particular, and calls us as by name. The Word calls, Ho, every one; the Spirit, by the application of that, calls, Ho, such a one; I know thee by name. Here am I-Not only to hear what is said, but to do what I am bidden.

Verses 3, 4. I will turn aside and see — He speaks as one inquisitive and bold in his inquiry: whatever it was, he would, if possible, know the meaning of it. God called to him, and said, Moses, Moses — Probably there had been no appearance of God to any one since Jacob’s descent into Egypt, above two hundred years before: and Moses, being addressed thus by name, must have been much more surprised by what he heard than by what he saw. Divine calls are then effectual when the Spirit of God makes them particular, and calls us as by name. He said, Here am I — Not only to hear what is spoken, but to do what is commanded.

JEHOVAH IN THE BURNING BRAMBLE, 1-6.

1. Now Moses kept the flock — Rather, Was feeding the flock. The Hebrew word expresses a continued occupation. Reuel-Jethro, or Reuel the excellent, was priest of Midian, and father of Zipporah and Hobab. See Concluding Note, chap. 2. To the backside — That is, the western side, for in the Hebrew orientation the spectator is always supposed to face the east, which is hence called “the front,” while the south is the “right hand,” as in 1 Samuel 23:19, margin, and the north is “the left hand,” as in Genesis 14:15. Moses led his flock westerly or northwesterly, through the desert strip, to the elevated ground of Horeb, where were the most fertile valleys of the peninsula, and where there was water when the lower lands were dry. The desert of Arabia is not a hot, sandy plain, like the deserts of Africa, but a very uneven, rocky, gravel-covered tract, which, except in summer, furnishes fair pasturage for flocks. Perhaps the approach of midsummer caused this movement. The mountain of God. So called from God’s subsequent manifestation there; or, as the Targumists express it, “the mountain on which was revealed the glory of Jah.” Moses wrote this after the giving of the law at Sinai. Horeb — This was the name of the whole mountain cluster of which Sinai was a single summit. The two words are used interchangeably to denote the Mount of the Law; but before Israel reached the mountain district, as here — and after they left it, as in Deuteronomy, when they were encamped in the plains of Moab — it is called Horeb, since at a distance the special summit is not particularized; but while before the Mount of the Law it is always (except only in Exodus 33:6) called Sinai, since, while among the mountains, it was necessary to specify the particular peak intended. Moses smote the rock in Horeb (the district) before they reached Sinai, the mountain. Exodus 17:1-6. (ROBINSON, Bib. Res., 1:120.)

V. 5. Put off thy shoes from off thy feet-The putting off the shoe was then what the putting off the hat is now, a token of respect and submission. The ground is holy ground, made so by this special manifestation of the divine presence. We ought to approach to God with a solemn pause and preparation; and to express our inward reverence, by a grave and reverent behaviour in the worship of God, carefully avoiding every thing that looks light, or rude.

Verse 5. Put off thy shoes] It is likely that from this circumstance all the eastern nations have agreed to perform all the acts of their religious worship barefooted. All the Mohammedans, Brahmins, and Parsees do so still. The Jews were remarked for this in the time of Juvenal; hence he speaks of their performing their sacred rites barefooted; Sat. vi., ver. 158: Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges.

The ancient Greeks did the same. Jamblichus, in the life of Pythagoras, tells us that this was one of his maxims, anupodhtov que kai proskunei, Offer sacrifice and worship with your shoes off. And Solinus asserts that no person was permitted to enter into the temple of Diana, in Crete, till he had taken off his shoes. “Ædem Numinis (Dianæ) præterquam nudus vestigio nulles licito ingreditur.” Tertullian observes, de jejunio, that in a time of drought the worshippers of Jupiter deprecated his wrath, and prayed for rain, walking barefooted. “Cum stupet cælum, et aret annus, nudipedalia, denunciantur.” It is probable that נעלים nealim, in the text, signifies sandals, translated by the Chaldee ldns sandal, and aldns sandala, (see Genesis 14:23,) which was the same as the Roman solea, a sole alone, strapped about the foot As this sole must let in dust, gravel, and sand about the foot in travelling, and render it very uneasy, hence the custom of frequently washing the feet in those countries where these sandals were worn. Pulling off the shoes was, therefore, an emblem of laying aside the pollutions contracted by walking in the way of sin. Let those who name the Lord Jesus Christ depart from iniquity. In our western countries reverence is expressed by pulling off the hat; but how much more significant is the eastern custom! “The natives of Bengal never go into their own houses with their shoes on, nor into the houses of others, but always leave their shoes at the door. It would be a great affront not to attend to this mark of respect when visiting; and to enter a temple without pulling off the shoes would be an unpardonable offence.”-Ward.

The place whereon thou standest is holy ground.] It was not particularly sanctified by the Divine presence; but if we may credit Josephus, a general opinion had prevailed that God dwelt on that mountain; and hence the shepherds, considering it as sacred ground, did not dare to feed their flocks there. Moses, however, finding the soil to be rich and the pasturage good, boldly drove his flock thither to feed on it.-Antiq., b. ii., c. xii., s. 1.

Verse 5. Draw not nigh hither — Keep thy distance. Thus God checks his curiosity and forwardness, and disposes his mind to the greater reverence and humility. Put off thy shoes from thy feet — This is required as a token of his reverence for the Divine Majesty, then and there eminently present; of his humiliation for his sins, which rendered him unworthy to appear before God; of his putting away all sin in his walk or conversation; and of his submission and readiness to obey God’s will; for which reason slaves were wont to approach their masters barefooted. We find the same direction given to Joshua, for the same reason, Joshua 5:15. And it seems not improbable that putting off the shoes, as a sign of humiliation and veneration, was a ceremony observed by the patriarchs in their religious worship. Buxtorf says, that to this day the Jews go to their synagogues barefoot on the day of atonement, (Jud. Synag., c. 30, p. 57,) and many learned men suppose that the priests officiated barefoot in the tabernacle and temple. The custom of treading barefoot in holy places seems to have been general in the East: the Egyptians used it: and Pythagoras, who recommends to his disciples to worship, putting off their shoes, (anupodhtov proskunei,) is thought to have learned this rite from them. The Mohammedans observe this ceremony at the present time, as do also the Christians of Abyssinia. The truth seems to be, as Henry observes, that putting off the shoes was then what putting off the hat is now, a token of respect and submission. The ground is holy — Not absolutely, but in relation to him who sanctified it by this peculiar manifestation of his presence. We ought to approach to God with a solemn pause and preparation; and to express our inward reverence by a grave and reverent behaviour in the worship of God, carefully avoiding every thing that looks light or rude.

Ver. 5. Put off thy shoes. The ancient priests officiated barefoot. Men in general washed their hands and their feet, and purified themselves before they approached the altar.

5. Put off thy shoes — The Orientals drop their shoes or sandals at the door, lest they defile the department by bringing in the dirt of the street; and by this expressive symbolism was Moses taught that he was drawing nigh to Him in whose sight “the heavens are not clean.” The awful holiness of God is the first thought that the praying soul needs, and hence at the threshold of prayer the soul is taught to drop its sandals with “Hallowed be thy name.”

V. 6. I am the God of thy father-He lets him know it is God that speaks to him, to engage his reverence, faith and obedience. Thy father, thy pious father Amram, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thy ancestors. Engaged to them by solemn covenant, which I am now come to perform. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God-The more we see of God, the more cause we shall see to worship him with reverence and godly fear. And even the manifestations of God’s grace should increase our humble reverence of him.

Verse 6. I am the God of thy father] Though the word yba abi, father, is here used in the singular, St Stephen, quoting this place, Acts 7:32, uses the plural, o qeov twn paterwn sou, The God of thy FATHERS; and that this is the meaning the following words prove: The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. These were the fathers of Moses in a direct line. This reading is confirmed by the Samaritan and by the Coptic. ABRAHAM was the father of the Ishmaelites, and with him was the covenant first made. ISAAC was the father of the Edomites as well as the Israelites, and with him was the covenant renewed. JACOB was the father of the twelve patriarchs, who were founders of the Jewish nation, and to him were the promises particularly confirmed. Hence we see that the Arabs and Turks in general, who are descendants of Ishmael; the Edomites, now absorbed among the Jews, (see Clarke’s note on “Genesis 25:23”,) who are the descendants of Esau; and the Jewish people, wheresoever scattered, who are the descendants of Jacob, are all heirs of the promises included in this primitive covenant; and their gathering in with the fulness of the Gentiles may be confidently expected. And Moses hid his face] For similar acts, see the passages referred to in the margin. He was afraid to look-he was overawed by God’s presence, and dazzled with the splendour of the appearance.

Verse 6. I am, &c. — He lets him know it is God that speaks to him, to engage his reverence, faith, and obedience. The God of thy father — Thy pious father Amram, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thy ancestors: engaged to them by solemn covenant, which I am now come to perform. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God — The more we see of God, the more cause we shall see to worship him with reverence and godly fear. And even the manifestations of God’s grace should increase our humble reverence of him.

Ver. 6. Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face. And not only Moses, but the Israelites in future ages, when entreating the good will of Him that dwelt in the bush to accompany them and to bless their children, assuredly understood this Angel of the Covenant to be the God of their fathers, eternal and uncreated. A succession of the christian fathers, Justin, Hilary, Theophylact, Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Ambrose have so understood it. Tertullian, who flourished at the close of the second century, is ample on this head. Following Irenæus and others, he says that He who spake to Moses was himself the Son of God. Qui ad Moysen loquebatur, ipse erat Dei Filius. Contra Judæos, cap. 9. He asserts farther, that the Son, from the beginning exercised judgment, overthrowing the proud tower, confounding the language, dispersing the tribes, punishing the whole earth with the violence of the waters, raining on Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from Jehovah. For he had always descended in human [or angelic] figure to converse with men, from Adam to the patriarchs and prophets, in visions, in dreams, in figures and shadows, always instructing them from the beginning, &c. Adversus Prax. cap. 16. Irenæus also affirms that the Iaw of the Greeks was the Jehovah of the Hebrews.

6. The God of thy father — Whose name thy father and mother taught thee; and the God of their fathers — of the sacred patriarchal line — who remembers his covenant with them. But Jesus shows us (Matthew 22:32, where see note) that the words were deeper still, revealing to Moses not only that He lived, but that they lived as sharers in this everlasting covenant, and were looking for its fulfilment. A covenant with Jehovah implies, connotes, or includes, immortality. Moses had waited long. Now his father’s God speaks to him in a tongue of flame; calls him by his name, yet warns him not to draw nigh; brings before him those waiting fathers — a “cloud of witnesses!” What wonder that he hid his face from the blaze of such a revelation!

MOSES IS CALLED, 7-10; AND GOD REVEALS THE MEMORIAL NAME, 11-22.

Verse 7. I have surely seen] ytyar har raoh raithi, seeing, I have seen-I have not only seen the afflictions of this people because I am omniscient, but I have considered their sorrows, and my eye affects my heart.

7-10. God dispels the mystery, that had been so long thickening upon his providence, unfolds his plan, and gives Moses his commission.

V. 8. I am come down to deliver them-When God doth something very extraordinary, he is said to come down to do it, as Isaiah 64:1. This deliverance was typical of our redemption by Christ, and in that the eternal Word did indeed come down from heaven to deliver us. A large land-So it was, according to its true and ancient bounds, as they are described, Genesis 15:18, and not according to those narrow limits, to which they were afterwards confined for their unbelief and impiety. A land flowing with milk and honey-A proverbial expression, abounding with the choicest fruits, both for necessity and delight.

Verse 8. And I am come down to deliver them] This is the very purpose for which I am now come down upon this mountain, and for which I manifest myself to thee.

Large-land] Canaan, when compared with the small tract of Goshen, in which they were now situated, and where, we learn, from Exodus 1:7, they were straitened for room, might be well called a large land. See a fine description of this land Deuteronomy 8:7.

A land flowing with milk and honey] Excellent for pasturage, because abounding in the most wholesome herbage and flowers; and from the latter an abundance of wild honey was collected by the bees. Though cultivation is now almost entirely neglected in this land, because of the badness of the government and the scantiness of the inhabitants, yet it is still good for pasturage, and yields an abundance of honey. The terms used in the text to express the fertility of this land, are commonly used by ancient authors on similar subjects. It is a metaphor taken from a breast producing copious streams of milk. Homer calls Argos ouqar arourhv, the breast of the country, as affording streams of milk and honey, Il. ix., ver. 141. So Virgil:—

Prima tulit tellus, eadem vos ubere laeto

Accipiet.

Æn., lib. iii., ver. 95.

“The land that first produced you shall receive you again into its joyous bosom.”

The poets feign that Bacchus, the fable of whom they have taken from the history of Moses, produced rivers of milk and honey, of water and wine:— JPei de galakti pedon,

JPei dJ oinw, pei de melissan

Nektari

EURIP. Bacch., Epod., ver. 8.

“The land flows with milk; it flows also with wine; it flows also with the nectar of bees, (honey.)” This seems to be a mere poetical copy from the Pentateuch, where the sameness of the metaphor and the correspondence of the descriptions are obvious.

Place of the Canaanites, &c.] See Genesis 15:18, &c.

Verse 8. I am come down to deliver them — When God doth something very extraordinary, he is said to come down to do it, as Isaiah 64:1. This deliverance was typical of our redemption by Christ, and in that the eternal Word did indeed come down from heaven to deliver us. A large land — So it was, according to its true and ancient bounds, as they are described, (Genesis 15:18,) and not according to those narrow limits, to which they were afterward confined for their unbelief and impiety. A land flowing with milk and honey — A proverbial expression: abounding with the choicest fruits, both for necessity and delight.

Ver. 8. A good land and large, compared with the Delta or fork of the Nile, in which they had lived. From Beersheba, the south west point, to the colony of Dan, Judges 7., was about 180 miles, and the breadth from the sea to Gilead about 100 miles.

7-10. God dispels the mystery, that had been so long thickening upon his providence, unfolds his plan, and gives Moses his commission.

7-10. God dispels the mystery, that had been so long thickening upon his providence, unfolds his plan, and gives Moses his commission.

V. 10. I will send thee-And the same hand that now fetched a shepherd out of a desert to be the planter of the Jewish church, afterwards fetched fishermen from their ships to be the planters of the Christian church, that the excellency of the power might be of God.

Verse 10. I will send thee — And the same hand that now fetched a shepherd out of a desert to be the planter of the Jewish Church, afterward fetched fishermen from their ships to be the planters of the Christian Church, that the excellency of the power might be of God.

7-10. God dispels the mystery, that had been so long thickening upon his providence, unfolds his plan, and gives Moses his commission.

V. 11. Who am I?-He thinks himself unworthy of the honour and unable for the work. He thinks he wants courage, and therefore cannot go to Pharaoh: he thinks he wants conduct, and therefore cannot bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt; they are unarmed, undisciplined, quite dispirited, utterly unable to help themselves, Moses was incomparably the fittest of any man living for this work, eminent for learning, wisdom, experience, valour, faith, holiness, and yet Who am I? The more fit any person is for service, commonly the less opinion he has of himself.

Verse 11. Who am I-that I should bring] He was so satisfied that this was beyond his power, and all the means that he possessed, that he is astonished that even God himself should appoint him to this work! Such indeed was the bondage of the children of Israel, and the power of the people by whom they were enslaved, that had not their deliverance come through supernatural means, their escape had been utterly impossible.

Verse 11. Who am I? — He thinks himself unworthy of the honour, and unable for the work. He thinks he wants courage, and therefore cannot go to Pharaoh: he thinks he wants conduct, and therefore cannot bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt — They are unarmed, undisciplined, quite dispirited, utterly unable to help themselves. Moses was incomparably the fittest of any man living for this work, eminent for learning, wisdom, experience, valour, faith, holiness, and yet he says, Who am I? The more fit any person is for service, the less opinion he has of himself.

11. Who am I — Forty years before he had been all ready in his youthful confidence, but the work that God had for him has been rising before him in its vastness, till now it overwhelms him. So Isaiah, when he had seen Jehovah and received his commission, cried, “Woe is me!” So Paul cried, “Who is sufficient for these things!”

V. 12. Certainly I will be with thee-Those that are weak in themselves, yet may do wonders being strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. God’s presence puts wisdom and strength into the weak and foolish, and is enough to answer all objections.

Verse 12. Certainly I will be with thee] This great event shall not be left to thy wisdom and to thy power; my counsel shall direct thee, and my power shall bring all these mighty things to pass.

And this shall be a token] Literally, And THIS to thee for a sign, i.e., this miraculous manifestation of the burning bush shall be a proof that I have sent thee; or, My being with thee, to encourage thy heart, strengthen thy hands, and enable thee to work miracles, shall be to thyself and to others the evidence of thy Divine mission.

Ye shall serve God upon this mountain.] This was not the sign, but God shows him, that in their return from Egypt they should take this mountain in their way, and should worship him in this place. There may be a prophetic allusion here to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. As Moses received his commands here, so likewise should the Israelites receive theirs in the same place. After all, the Divine Being seems to testify a partial predilection for this mountain, for reasons that are not expressed. See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 3:5”.

Verse 12. Certainly I will be with thee — Those that are weak in themselves, yet may do wonders, being strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. God’s presence puts wisdom and strength into the weak and foolish, and is enough to answer all objections.

12. The Lord does not deny his servant’s weakness, but promises to reveal through it his strength. Upon this mountain — The bush was probably upon the Sinai mount of the Horeb range, on which Jehovah afterward descended in fire. This (burning bramble) shall be a token — Rather, is a token. The verse is often read as if the subsequent success of his mission to Pharaoh, and the consequent worship upon Sinai, were to be regarded as the tokens that he had been sent. Success itself was an obvious token then, but the hesitating Moses wants a present sign. The flaming bramble shrub was the token that he would bring Israel to the flaming bramble mount.

V. 13. When they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them?-What name shall I use, whereby thou mayest be distinguished from false gods, and thy people may be encouraged to expect deliverance from thee?

Verse 13. They shall say-What is his name?] Does not this suppose that the Israelites had an idolatrous notion even of the Supreme Being? They had probably drank deep into the Egyptian superstitions, and had gods many and lords many; and Moses conjectured that, hearing of a supernatural deliverance, they would inquire who that God was by whom it was to be effected. The reasons given here by the rabbins are too refined for the Israelites at this time. “When God,” say they, “judgeth his creatures, he is called אלהים Elohim; when he warreth against the wicked, he is called twabx Tsebaoth; but when he showeth mercy unto the world, he is called hwhy Yehovah.” It is not likely that the Israelites had much knowledge of God or of his ways at the time to which the sacred text refers; it is certain they had no written word. The book of Genesis, if even written, (for some suppose it had been composed by Moses during his residence in Midian,) had not yet been communicated to the people; and being so long without any revelation, and perhaps without even the form of Divine worship, their minds being degraded by the state of bondage in which they had been so long held, and seeing and hearing little in religion but the superstitions of those among whom they sojourned, they could have no distinct notion of the Divine Being. Moses himself might have been in doubt at first on this subject, and he seems to have been greatly on his guard against illusion; hence he asks a variety of questions, and endeavours, by all prudent means, to assure himself of the truth and certainty of the present appearance and commission. He well knew the power of the Egyptian magicians, and he could not tell from these first views whether there might not have been some delusion in this case. God therefore gives him the fullest proof, not only for the satisfaction of the people to whom he was to be sent, but for his own full conviction, that it was the supreme God who now spoke to him.

Verse 13. When they shall say, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? — What name shall I use, whereby thou mayest be distinguished from false gods, and thy people may be encouraged to expect deliverance from thee?

13. His name — Now he desires to look at his commission, and asks, What is His name. With the Hebrews proper names were not simply labels attached to individuals — they were significant — they indicated character. So the change from Jacob to Israel — from Abram to Abraham — indicated change of character and relation. So when Jacob pleaded with the Angel, “Tell me thy name,” he meant “Reveal thy character.” Name is thus constantly used by the Scripture writers to mean a cluster of attributes. To praise God’s name, is to adore the holiness, justice, truth, signified by that name. To profane it, is to slight his character, his person. We pray through Christ’s name; that is, through his character and work as Redeemer. At successive epochs of revelation God has revealed himself by different names to set forth different phases of his glorious character, and he promises to write upon the redeemed at last “his new name,” that is, to show them glories in his character which can never be seen till then. Moses asks, then, in this question, What new phase of God’s character is to be revealed? God replies by unfolding afresh the true significance of a name which had long been known, at least to a few, but whose meaning was now to be stamped anew by wondrous works into the national consciousness.

V. 14. And God said-Two names God would now be known by. 1. A name that speaks what he is in himself, I am that I am-This explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1st, That he is self-existent; he has his being of himself, and has no dependence upon any other. And being self-existent he cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore all-sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and bliss. 2dly, That he is eternal and unchangeable, always the same, yesterday to-day, and for ever: he will be what he will be, and what he is. 3dly. That he is faithful and true to all his promises, unchangeable in his word as well as in his nature, and not a man that he should lie. Let Israel know this, I am hath sent me unto you. 2. A name that speaks what he is to his people. Lest that name I am should puzzle them, he is farther directed to make use of another name of God, more familiar.

Verse 14. I AM THAT I AM] hyha rva hyha EHEYEH asher

EHEYEH. These words have been variously understood. The Vulgate translates EGO SUM QUI SUM, I am who am. The Septuagint, Egw eimi o Wn, I am he who exists. The Syriac, the Persic, and the Chaldee preserve the original words without any gloss. The Arabic paraphrases them, The Eternal, who passes not away; which is the same interpretation given by Abul Farajius, who also preserves the original words, and gives the above as their interpretation. The Targum of Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum paraphrase the words thus: “He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things existed.” As the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be, some have supposed that God simply designed to inform Moses, that what he had been to his fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would be to him and the Israelites; and that he would perform the promises he had made to his fathers, by giving their descendants the promised land. It is difficult to put a meaning on the words; they seem intended to point out the eternity and self-existence of God. Plato, in his Parmenides, where he treats sublimely of the nature of God, says, OudJ ara onoma estin autw, nothing can express his nature; therefore no name can be attributed to him. See the conclusion of this chapter, See Clarke’s note at “Exodus 3:22”. and on the word Jehovah, Exodus 34:6, 7.

Verse 14. God said — Two names God would be known by: 1st, A name that speaks what he is in himself, I AM THAT I AM. The Septuagint renders the words eimi o wn, I AM the existing Being, or HE WHO IS; and the Chaldee, I AM HE WHO IS, and WHO WILL BE. That is, I am He that enjoys an essential, independent, immutable, and necessary existence, He that IS, and WAS, and IS TO COME. It explains his name Jehovah, and signifies, 1st, That he is self-existent: he has his being of himself, and has no dependance on any other. And being self-existent, he cannot but be self-sufficient, and therefore all-sufficient, and the inexhaustible fountain of being and blessedness. 2d, That he is eternal and unchangeable: the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. For the words are with equal propriety rendered, I WILL BE WHAT I AM, or, I AM WHAT I WILL BE, or, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. Other beings are, and have been, and shall be; but because what they have been might have been otherwise, and what they are might possibly not have been at all, and what they shall be may be very different from what now is therefore their changeable, dependant, and precarious essence, which to-day may be one thing, to-morrow another thing, and the next day possibly nothing at all, scarce deserves the name of being. There is another consideration which makes this name peculiarly applicable to God, namely that he is the fountain of all being and perfection, and that from him all things have derived their existence; so that it is he alone that has life in himself: and no creature, of whatever rank or order, has so much as an existence of its own: For in him we live, and move, and have our being. And though divers of God’s attributes are, through his goodness, participated by his creatures, yet because they possess them in a way so inferior to that transcendent, peculiar, and divine manner in which they belong to God, the Scriptures seem absolutely to exclude created beings from any title to those attributes. Thus our Saviour says, There is none good but one, that is God. Thus St. Paul terms God the only Potentate, though the earth be shared by several potentates; and the only wise God, though many men and the holy angels are wise. And thus he describes him as one who only hath immortality, although angels and human souls are also immortal. In so incommunicable a manner does the superiority of God’s nature make him possess those very excellences which the diffusiveness of his goodness has induced him to communicate. 3d, That he is faithful and true to all his promises, unchangeable in his word, as well as in his nature; and not a man that he should lie. Let Israel know this; I AM hath sent me unto you.

Ver. 14. I am that I am. hyha rva hyha EHEYEH asher EHEYEH. I will be that I will be. The Septuaginta read, Egw eimi o Wn, I am he who is. Our version follows Jerome. In the next verse, the great, the glorious, and constant name of the Divinity is JEHOVAH, called by the rabbins the Tetragrammaton, because it is composed of four letters, designating the past, the present, and the future. Ex. hyh Ejeh, fuit, he was; hwhy erit, he will or shall be; hwh ens, being, existence, he is. St. John has four times given us the same etymon. “I am he who is, and who was, and who is to come.” Revelation 1:4, 8. 4:8. 11:17. The reader needs but one remark, to pray that God would write his name on the heart. A multitude of glosses have been examined, but without affording any additional light. See more on John 8:58.—We may add however, as a collateral, that in the temple of Minerva at Saïs in Egypt, in which the kings of that province were interred, and visited by Herodotus, as in his Euterpe, and afterwards by Plutarch, the Greek word EI, one, or as others read, Thou art, was on that temple, which, no doubt, was anterior to any acquaintance of that nation with the writings of Moses. The same letters, according to Plutarch, were inscribed on the far-famed temple of Delphos.

14, 15. My name — THE MEMORIAL NAME, hyha rva hyha, a paraphrase of the name JEHOVAH, or JAHVEH; literally rendered, I AM WHO AM, that is, I AM HE WHO IS — I only am He who exists in Himself — an idea which the Alexandrian translators expressed by ‘O WN; Justin, by Ille Ens. And this is not an assertion of mere abstract existence — for the Hebrew verb never stops with this — but of living, active existence, of Being manifesting itself. Absolute independence, and consequent unchangeableness and eternal activity, are implied in the name I AM, and by adding the relative clause, WHO AM, the thought is added that these attributes belong only to Jehovah. Absolutely independent in being and action, nothing can hinder him from performing his will; unchangeable, what once he has promised must forever be his purpose. Often after this God appeals to this Memorial Name as the witness, (1,) of his absolute solitary supremacy: “I am Jehovah… Ye shall have no other gods,” (Exodus 20:2, 3;) (2,) of his immutability: “I am Jehovah; I change not,” (Malachi 3:6;) (3,) but especially ofhis eternal activity in manifesting himself; “I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out… I will take you to me for a people… I will bring you in unto the land… I am Jehovah,” (Exodus 6:6, etc.) This name was to be Israel’s fortress, an infinite storehouse of hopes and consolations. Grammatically, the word here rendered I AM is the first person future of the verb of existence translated as a present, (the Hebrew has no proper present,) which tense conveys the idea of the future continuance of the present state. (Nordh., Hebrews Gram., § 964, 2.) Now the word translated Jehovah (more properly Jahveh) is the third person future of the same verb in its archaic form, HAVAH, (or is, as some think, formed from this verb with a prefix,) and so “Jehovah” has the same meaning in the third person which this word has in the first. Thus the name afterward announced to Moses, in Exodus 6:3, is the same as I AM: in the mouth of God it is I WHO AM; in the mouth of man it is HE WHO IS. This, as says Maimonides, is the only real, proper name of God; for while other names set forth some of his attributes — attributes which, to some degree, he shares with created beings — this name alone sets forth his innermost, incommunicable nature. This distinction is grammaticaliy stamped on the word, for it has no article, no plural, no construct.

It is well to briefly compare the inspired Memorial Name with the other common appellations of God. It is a word worthy to be the core of revelation.

Our word “lord” means governor, and simply brings before us God’s authority. “God” has the same meaning, though some have incorrectly derived it from “good.” “Deity” is from Latin, deus; Greek, qeov; Sanskrit, dyaus, from div, to shine; and means “the Shining One,” that is, according to Max Muller, the sun, which our Aryan ancestors worshipped in Asia. Thus the classic names and our word “deity” are all idolatrous in meaning, while “lord” and “god” connote simply authority. There are five Hebrew names often used, besides “Jehovah.” El and Elohim signify the STRONG and the STRONG ONES; Elyon signifies the MOST HIGH; Shaddai, the ALMIGHTY; and Adhonai corresponds to our “Lord.” But the Memorial Name comprises all these ideas and infinitely more.

(1.) I AM; (as says Bahr,) not the heathen “it,” a deified nature, but “I.” Pantheism, which all heathenism is at bottom, identifies God with nature, but here is a Personality above nature. The world in itself is nothing. God only IS.

(2.) Hence he is Lord of nature, which proceeded from him: Creator, Governor, Preserver; El, Elohim, Shaddai, Elyon, Adhonai.

(3.) The Living One: he is forever unfolding himself to man in word and work — God of providence and revelation.

(4.) Immutable: he is the God of our trust, the covenant God.

(5.) Immutable, he is also the Truth; ever consistent with his own nature, that is, holy, for the ground and the standard of right is the nature of God. Hence is he worthy of worship, (worth-ship,) supreme love, and praise. As Adam Clarke well says, the very Name itself is a proof of a divine revelation. It will be also seen how appropriate is this name to set forth the progressive revelation, the historical manifestation, of God’s character to the nation whom he had chosen to reveal him to mankind. It is not spoken of as a name entirely new would be, but is declared to be the name of the God of Israel’s fathers. Genesis 4:26 seems to declare that it was known in the days of Seth, and the proper names Moriah, (seen of Jah,) and Jochebed, (Jah, her glory,) show that it had been preserved in the sacred line, and that its abbreviated form was used in compound names; but its deep richness of meaning and covenant significance were now first to appear. Proper names were often thus repeated when events gave them fresh meaning and pertinence, as we see was the case with “Jacob,” “Esau,” “Beth-el,” and others. See also Concluding Note, and Exodus 6:3.

V. 15. The Lord God of our fathers hath sent me unto you-Thus God made himself known, that he might revive among them the religion of their fathers, which was much decayed, and almost lost. And that he might raise their expectations of the speedy performance of the promises made unto their fathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are particularly named, because with Abraham the covenant was first made, and with Isaac and Jacob oft expressly renewed, and these three were distinguished from their brethren, and chosen to be the trustees of the covenant. This God will have to be his name for ever, and it has been, is, and will be his name, by which his worshippers know him, and distinguish him from all false gods.

Verse 15. This is my name for ever] The name here referred to is that which immediately precedes, אלהים hwhy Yehovah Elohim, which we translate the LORD GOD, the name by which God had been known from the creation of the world, (see Genesis 2:4.) and the name by which he is known among the same people to the present day. Even the heathens knew this name of the true God; and hence out of our hwhy Yehovah they formed their Jao, Jeve, and Jove; so that the word has been literally fulfilled, This is my memorial unto all generations. See Clarke’s note on the word Elohim, “Genesis 1:1”. As to be self-existent and eternal must be attributes of God for ever, does it not follow that the לעלם leolam, for ever, in the text signifies eternity? “This is my name to eternity-and my memorial,” rd rdl ledor dor, “to all succeeding generations.” While human generations continue he shall be called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; but when time shall be no more, he shall be Jehovah Elohim. Hence the first expression refers to his eternal existence, the latter to the discovery he should make of himself as long as time should last. See Genesis 21:33. Diodorus Siculus says, that “among the Jews, Moses is reported to have received his laws from the God named Jao,” iaw, i.e., Jeue, Jove, or Jeve; for in all these ways the word hwhy Yehovah may be pronounced; and in this way I have seen it on Egyptian monuments. See Diod., lib. l., c. xciv.

Verse 15. God will be known, 2d, By a name that speaks what he is to his people. Lest they should not understand the name I AM, Moses is directed to make use of another name of God more familiar to them. The Lord God of your fathers hath sent me unto you — Thus God made himself known, that he might revive among them the religion of their fathers, which was much decayed, and almost lost. And, that he might raise their expectations of the speedy performance of the promises made unto their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are particularly named, because with Abraham the covenant was first made, and with Isaac and Jacob often expressly renewed, and these three were distinguished from their brethren, and chosen to be the trustees of the covenant. This God will have to be his name for ever, and it has been, is, and will be his name, by which his worshippers know him, and distinguish him from all false gods.

14, 15. My name — THE MEMORIAL NAME, hyha rva hyha, a paraphrase of the name JEHOVAH, or JAHVEH; literally rendered, I AM WHO AM, that is, I AM HE WHO IS — I only am He who exists in Himself — an idea which the Alexandrian translators expressed by ‘O WN; Justin, by Ille Ens. And this is not an assertion of mere abstract existence — for the Hebrew verb never stops with this — but of living, active existence, of Being manifesting itself. Absolute independence, and consequent unchangeableness and eternal activity, are implied in the name I AM, and by adding the relative clause, WHO AM, the thought is added that these attributes belong only to Jehovah. Absolutely independent in being and action, nothing can hinder him from performing his will; unchangeable, what once he has promised must forever be his purpose. Often after this God appeals to this Memorial Name as the witness, (1,) of his absolute solitary supremacy: “I am Jehovah… Ye shall have no other gods,” (Exodus 20:2, 3;) (2,) of his immutability: “I am Jehovah; I change not,” (Malachi 3:6;) (3,) but especially ofhis eternal activity in manifesting himself; “I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out… I will take you to me for a people… I will bring you in unto the land… I am Jehovah,” (Exodus 6:6, etc.) This name was to be Israel’s fortress, an infinite storehouse of hopes and consolations. Grammatically, the word here rendered I AM is the first person future of the verb of existence translated as a present, (the Hebrew has no proper present,) which tense conveys the idea of the future continuance of the present state. (Nordh., Hebrews Gram., § 964, 2.) Now the word translated Jehovah (more properly Jahveh) is the third person future of the same verb in its archaic form, HAVAH, (or is, as some think, formed from this verb with a prefix,) and so “Jehovah” has the same meaning in the third person which this word has in the first. Thus the name afterward announced to Moses, in Exodus 6:3, is the same as I AM: in the mouth of God it is I WHO AM; in the mouth of man it is HE WHO IS. This, as says Maimonides, is the only real, proper name of God; for while other names set forth some of his attributes — attributes which, to some degree, he shares with created beings — this name alone sets forth his innermost, incommunicable nature. This distinction is grammaticaliy stamped on the word, for it has no article, no plural, no construct.

It is well to briefly compare the inspired Memorial Name with the other common appellations of God. It is a word worthy to be the core of revelation.

Our word “lord” means governor, and simply brings before us God’s authority. “God” has the same meaning, though some have incorrectly derived it from “good.” “Deity” is from Latin, deus; Greek, qeov; Sanskrit, dyaus, from div, to shine; and means “the Shining One,” that is, according to Max Muller, the sun, which our Aryan ancestors worshipped in Asia. Thus the classic names and our word “deity” are all idolatrous in meaning, while “lord” and “god” connote simply authority. There are five Hebrew names often used, besides “Jehovah.” El and Elohim signify the STRONG and the STRONG ONES; Elyon signifies the MOST HIGH; Shaddai, the ALMIGHTY; and Adhonai corresponds to our “Lord.” But the Memorial Name comprises all these ideas and infinitely more.

(1.) I AM; (as says Bahr,) not the heathen “it,” a deified nature, but “I.” Pantheism, which all heathenism is at bottom, identifies God with nature, but here is a Personality above nature. The world in itself is nothing. God only IS.

(2.) Hence he is Lord of nature, which proceeded from him: Creator, Governor, Preserver; El, Elohim, Shaddai, Elyon, Adhonai.

(3.) The Living One: he is forever unfolding himself to man in word and work — God of providence and revelation.

(4.) Immutable: he is the God of our trust, the covenant God.

(5.) Immutable, he is also the Truth; ever consistent with his own nature, that is, holy, for the ground and the standard of right is the nature of God. Hence is he worthy of worship, (worth-ship,) supreme love, and praise. As Adam Clarke well says, the very Name itself is a proof of a divine revelation. It will be also seen how appropriate is this name to set forth the progressive revelation, the historical manifestation, of God’s character to the nation whom he had chosen to reveal him to mankind. It is not spoken of as a name entirely new would be, but is declared to be the name of the God of Israel’s fathers. Genesis 4:26 seems to declare that it was known in the days of Seth, and the proper names Moriah, (seen of Jah,) and Jochebed, (Jah, her glory,) show that it had been preserved in the sacred line, and that its abbreviated form was used in compound names; but its deep richness of meaning and covenant significance were now first to appear. Proper names were often thus repeated when events gave them fresh meaning and pertinence, as we see was the case with “Jacob,” “Esau,” “Beth-el,” and others. See also Concluding Note, and Exodus 6:3.

Verse 16. Elders of Israel] Though it is not likely the Hebrews were permitted to have any regular government at this time, yet there can be no doubt of their having such a government in the time of Joseph, and for some considerable time after; the elders of each tribe forming a kind of court of magistrates, by which all actions were tried, and legal decisions made, in the Israelitish community.

I have surely visited you] An exact fulfillment of the prediction of Joseph, Genesis 50:24, God will surely visit you, and in the same words too.

V. 18. Hath met with us-Hath appeared to us, declaring his will, that we should do what follows.

Verse 18. They shall hearken to thy voice] This assurance was necessary to encourage him in an enterprise so dangerous and important. Three days’ journey into the wilderness] Evidently intending Mount Sinai, which is reputed to be about three days’ journey, the shortest way, from the land of Goshen. In ancient times, distances were computed by the time required to pass over them. Thus, instead of miles, furlongs, &c., it was said, the distance from one place to another was so many days’, so many hours’ journey; and it continues the same in all countries where there are no regular roads or highways.

Verses 18, 19. Hath met with us — Hath appeared to us, declaring his will, that we should do what follows. I am sure he will not let you go — God sends his messengers to those whose obstinacy he foresees, that it may appear he would have them turn and live.

18. Three days’ journey… that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God — It was not national but religious independence which was the burden of their request — acknowledgment of the God of Israel. The first step in the Hebrew national history was in harmony with all that followed; the first throb of Hebrew national life was a blow at idolatry. Had Egypt met this first demand, and owned the sway of the One Only God, the plagues had never fallen, and perhaps Israel’s national mission had never been needed, and Memphis or Zoan had been in history what Jerusalem became. But Pharaoh would not acknowledge Jehovah, and so was forced to acknowledge Hebrew independence. He did not see at first how the two were linked together, nor did Moses.

V. 19. I am sure he will not let you go-God sends his messengers to those whose obstinacy he foresees, that it may appear he would have them turn and live.

Verse 19. I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand] When the facts detailed in this history have been considered in connection with the assertion as it stands in our Bibles, the most palpable contradiction has appeared. That the king of Egypt did let them go, and that by a mighty hand, the book itself amply declares. We should therefore seek for another meaning of the original word. alw velo, which generally means and not, has sometimes the meaning of if not, unless, except, &c.; and in Becke’s Bible, 1549, it is thus translated: I am sure that the kyng of Egypt wyl not let you go, EXCEPT wyth a mighty hand. This import of the negative particle, which is noticed by Noldius, Heb. Part., p. 328, was perfectly understood by the Vulgate, where it is translated nisi, unless; and the Septuagint in their ean mh, which is of the same import; and so also the Coptic. The meaning therefore is very plain: The king of Egypt, who now profits much by your servitude, will not let you go till he sees my hand stretched out, and he and his nation be smitten with ten plagues. Hence God immediately adds, Exodus 3:20: I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders-and after that, he will let you go.

Verses 18, 19. Hath met with us — Hath appeared to us, declaring his will, that we should do what follows. I am sure he will not let you go — God sends his messengers to those whose obstinacy he foresees, that it may appear he would have them turn and live.

19. And I am sure — Literally, I know, “that the king of Egypt will not let you go.” No, not by a mighty hand — Rather, But by a mighty hand. Obedience to this simple, plain demand made by Moses was possible, but God knew that Pharaoh would disobey, and predicted the results of his free volition. God knew Pharaoh’s proud and obstinate heart.

V. 22. Everywoman shall ask (not borrow!) jewels. And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians-God sometimes makes the enemies of his people not only to be at peace with them, but to be kind to them. And he has many ways of balancing accounts between the injured and the injurious, of righting the oppressed, and compelling those that have done wrong to make restitution.

Verse 22. Every woman shall borrow] This is certainly not a very correct translation: the original word lav shaal signifies simply to ask, request, demand, require, inquire, &c.; but it does not signify to borrow in the proper sense of that word, though in a very few places of Scripture it is thus used. In this and the parallel place, Exodus 12:35, the word signifies to ask or demand, and not to borrow, which is a gross mistake into which scarcely any of the versions, ancient or modern, have fallen, except our own. The SEPTUAGINT has aithsei, she shall ask; the VULGATE, postulabit, she shall demand; the SYRIAC, CHALDEE, SAMARITAN, SAMARITAN Version, COPTIC, and PERSIAN, are the same as the Hebrew. The European versions are generally correct on this point; and our common English version is almost the sole transgressor: I say, the common version, which, copying the Bible published by Becke in 1549, gives us the exceptionable term borrow, for the original lav shaal, which in the Geneva Bible, and Barker’s Bible of 1615, and some others, is rightly translated aske. God commanded the Israelites to ask or demand a certain recompense for their past services, and he inclined the hearts of the Egyptians to give liberally; and this, far from a matter of oppression, wrong, or even charity, was no more than a very partial recompense for the long and painful services which we may say six hundred thousand Israelites had rendered to Egypt, during a considerable number of years. And there can be no doubt that while their heaviest oppression lasted, they were permitted to accumulate no kind of property, as all their gains went to their oppressors.

Our exceptionable translation of the original has given some countenance to the desperate cause of infidelity; its abettors have exultingly said: “Moses represents the just God as ordering the Israelites to borrow the goods of the Egyptians under the pretence of returning them, whereas he intended that they should march off with the booty.” Let these men know that there was no borrowing in the case; and that if accounts were fairly balanced, Egypt would be found still in considerable arrears to Israel. Let it also be considered that the Egyptians had never any right to the services of the Hebrews. Egypt owed its policy, its opulence, and even its political existence, to the Israelites. What had Joseph for his important services? NOTHING! He had neither district, nor city, nor lordship in Egypt; nor did he reserve any to his children. All his services were gratuitous; and being animated with a better hope than any earthly possession could inspire, he desired that even his bones should be carried up out of Egypt. Jacob and his family, it is true, were permitted to sojourn in Goshen, but they were not provided for in that place; for they brought their cattle, their goods, and all that they had into Egypt, Genesis 46:1, 6; so that they had nothing but the bare land to feed on; and had built treasure cities or fortresses, we know not how many; and two whole cities, Pithom and Raamses, besides; and for all these services they had no compensation whatever, but were besides cruelly abused, and obliged to witness, as the sum of their calamities, the daily murder of their male infants. These particulars considered, will infidelity ever dare to produce this case again in support of its worthless pretensions?

Jewels of silver, &c.] The word ylk keley we have already seen signifies vessels, instruments, weapons, &c., and may be very well translated by our English term, articles or goods. The Israelites got both gold and silver, probably both in coin and in plate of different kinds; and such raiment as was necessary for the journey which they were about to undertake. Ye shall spoil the Egyptians.] The verb lxn natsal signifies, not only to spoil, snatch away, but also to get away, to escape, to deliver, to regain, or recover. SPOIL signifies what is taken by rapine or violence; but this cannot be the meaning of the original word here, as the Israelites only asked, and the Egyptians with out fear, terror, or constraint, freely gave. It is worthy of remark that the original word is used, 1 Samuel 30:22, to signify the recovery of property that had been taken away by violence: “Then answered all the wicked men, and men of Belial, of those that went with David, Because they went not with us we will not give them aught of the SPOIL (llchm mehashSHALAL) that we have RECOVERED, wnlxh rva asher HITSTSALNU. In this sense we should understand the word here. The Israelites recovered a part of their property-their wages, of which they had been most unjustly deprived by the Egyptians.

IN this chapter we have much curious and important information; but what is most interesting is the name by which God was pleased to make himself known to Moses and to the Israelites, a name by which the Supreme Being was afterwards known among the wisest inhabitants of the earth. HE who IS and who WILL BE what he IS. This is a proper characteristic of the Divine Being, who is, properly speaking, the only BEING, because he is independent and eternal; whereas all other beings, in whatsoever forms they may appear, are derived, finite, changeable, and liable to destruction, decay, and even to annihilation. When God, therefore, announced himself to Moses by this name, he proclaimed his own eternity and immateriality; and the very name itself precludes the possibility of idolatry, because it was impossible for the mind, in considering it, to represent the Divine Being in any assignable shape; for who could represent BEING or Existence by any limited form? And who can have any idea of a form that is unlimited? Thus, then, we find that the first discovery which God made of himself was intended to show the people the simplicity and spirituality of his nature; that while they considered him as BEING, and the Cause of all BEING, they might be preserved from all idolatry for ever. The very name itself is a proof of a Divine revelation; for it is not possible that such an idea could have ever entered into the mind of man, unless it had been communicated from above. It could not have been produced by reasoning, for there were no premises on which it could be built, nor any analogies by which it could have been formed. We can as easily comprehend eternity as we can being, simply considered in and of itself, when nothing of assignable forms, colours, or qualities existed, besides its infinite and illimitable self. To this Divine discovery the ancient Greeks owed the inscription which they placed above the door of the temple of Apollo at Delphi: the whole of the inscription consisted in the simple monosyllable EI, THOU ART, the second person of the Greek substantive verb eimi, I am. On this inscription Plutarch, one of the most intelligent of all the Gentile philosophers, made an express treatise, peri tou EI en Delfoiv, having received the true interpretation in his travels in Egypt, whither he had gone for the express purpose of inquiring into their ancient learning, and where he had doubtless seen these words of God to Moses in the Greek version of the Septuagint, which had been current among the Egyptians (for whose sake it was first made) about four hundred years previously to the death of Plutarch. This philosopher observes that “this title is not only proper, but peculiar to God, because HE alone is being; for mortals have no participation of true being, because that which begins and ends, and is continually changing, is never one nor the same, nor in the same state. The deity on whose temple this word was inscribed was called Apollo, apolln, from a, negative, and poluv, many, because God is ONE, his nature simple, his essence uncompounded.” Hence he informs us the ancient mode of addressing God was, “EI ‘EN, Thou art One, ov gar polla to qeion estin, for many cannot be attributed to the Divine nature: kai ou proteron ouden estin, oudJ usteron, oude mellon, oude parwchmenon, oude

presbuteron, oude newteron, in which there is neither first nor last, future nor past, old nor young; allJ eis wn eni tw nun to aei peplhrwke, but as being one, fills up in one NOW an eternal duration.” And he concludes with observing that “this word corresponds to certain others on the same temple, viz., GNWQI SEAUTON, Know thyself; as if, under the name EI. THOU ART, the Deity designed to excite men to venerate HIM as eternally existing, wv onta diapantov, and to put them in mind of the frailty and mortality of their own nature.” What beautiful things have the ancient Greek philosophers stolen from the testimonies of God to enrich their own works, without any kind of acknowledgment! And, strange perversity of man! these are the very things which we so highly applaud in the heathen copies, while we neglect or pass them by in the Divine originals!

EXODUS

Verse 22. Every woman shall ask, hlav, shaalah, (not borrow,) jewels. And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians — God sometimes makes the enemies of his people not only to be at peace with them, but to be kind to them. And he has many ways of balancing accounts between the injured and the injurious, of righting the oppressed, and compelling those that have done wrong to make restitution.

Ver. 22. Every woman shall borrow. God foretold that this should be, Genesis 15:14. Deuteronomy 15:13, 14. The men were also to borrow, Exodus 11:2. The women of Israel were much employed as servants in the houses of the Egyptians; and that nation worshipped their gods with their persons decorated with jewels. But there is an appearance of guile and deceit in the Israelites, and guile and deceit by God’s command. This arises from our not taking the whole history in a collective view, and from our not being better acquainted with the manners of the east. It was usual for servants to receive a present at the expiration of a servitude. Had the original been translated ask instead of borrow; that is, fairly and openly ask for God’s service, and as the just reward for past labours and sufferings, the difficulty would have been very much removed. It is evident however that there was no deceit in asking those favours, because the Egyptians became at last urgent with them to depart; for they said, we be all dead men. See on Exodus 8:26.

22. Every woman shall borrow — Literally, ask, for this is always the meaning of the word lav; and whether the thing asked for is to be returned or not the context must determine. Thus the thirsty Barak asks water, (Judges 5:25,) and Gideon asks for the golden earrings of the Ishmaelites, (Judges 8:26,) evidently not intending to return the things asked for; but the prophet’s widow (2 Kings 4:3) asks empty oil vessels of her neighbours, possibly intending to return them. All the circumstances here show that the Israelites did not promise, and that the Egyptians did not expect, that these jewels and garments would ever be returned. See on Exodus 11:2, etc.

CONCLUDING NOTE.

The Memorial Name. Exodus 3:14, 15, and 6:3. The translation of this passage in the Anglican version, I AM THAT I AM, is wholly unsatisfactory, for, as Murphy says, any being might affirm that he is what he is. It is usually understood as affirming God’s inscrutable and immutable nature; but though this is in the Hebrew, it certainly is not in our translation. Murphy suggests “I AM FOR I AM,” which he ably defends, but we judge that the translation suggested in our note is far better. It is perfectly literal, and, we think, just covers the Hebrew thought. Bunsen follows the Arabic in rendering “THE ETERNAL,” but this fails to bring out the covenant riches of the Name. Revelation 1:4 evidently paraphrases this name “I AM” in the sentence “HE WHO IS, AND WHO WAS, AND WHO IS TO COME.” Clement of Alexandria (Paedag., i, chap. viii) says that “the One Name” means “WHO IS,” and (Strom. i, chap. 30:25,) renders Exodus 3:14, “HE WHO IS, sent me.” So Theodoret and Epiphanius. See Ewald’s Hist. Israel, ii, App. Jacobus, M’Whorter, and others, follow Oleaster, Luther, etc., in rendering the word as a proper future, “I WILL BE,” and JEHOVAH as “HE WILL BE,” and understand the meaning to be “I WILL APPEAR,” and “HE WILL APPEAR,” or “WILL COME,” and so paraphrase the Name as “THE COMING ONE,” that is, the MESSIAH. Now Christ was, of course, the supreme manifestation of the character revealed in this Name, but we have no right to assume, as this translation does, that the patriarchs had definite expectations of the incarnation. Christology is not helped by such assumptions. Our translators have usually rendered hwhy by LORD or GOD, in small capitals, in only four instances translating it “Jehovah.” It is most unfortunate that they did not always preserve the Hebrew word. Its real pronunciation is doubtful, although it seems certain that it is not “Jehovah.” The Jews lost its sound from a superstitious fear of uttering it, always when they came to it in reading pronouncing the name Adhonai or Elohim, and when they wrote it always giving it the vowels of one of these names. Hence our word Jehovah is formed from the consonants of the sacred name hwhy with the vowels of Adhonai, and is quite surely not the true name. Yet it is so settled in our literature that it will probably not be displaced. It seems most likely that the true sound is Jahveh or Jahaveh, the J being sounded like Y, as hallelu-jah, which means “praise ye Jah.” Ewald and Hengstenberg defend the pronunciation Jah-veh with great force of argument. See Hengstenberg on Pent., Diss. II; Ewald’s Hist. of Israel, ii, App.