By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854
BOOK THIRD.
THE DISPENSATION WITH AND UNDER THE LAW.
CHAPTER FIRST.
THE DIVINE TRUTHS EMBODIED IN THE HISTORICAL TRANSACTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE REDEMPTION FROM EGYPT, VIEWED AS PRELIMINARY TO THE SYMBOLICAL RELIGION BROUGHT IN BY MOSES.
SECTION III.
We have now come to the actual accomplishment of Israel's deliverance from the house of bondage. One can easily imagine that various methods might have been devised to bring it about. And had the Israelites been an ordinary race of men, and had the question simply been, how to get them most easily and quickly released from their state of oppression, a method would probably have been adopted very different from the one that was actually pursued. It is by viewing the matter thus, that shallow and superficial minds so often form an erroneous judgment concerning it. They see nothing peculiar in the case, and form their estimate of the whole transactions, as if only common relations were concerned, and nothing more than worldly ends were in view. Hence, because the plan from the first savoured so much of judgment,---because, instead of seeking to have the work accomplished in the most peaceful and conciliatory manner, the Lord rather selected a course that was likely to produce bloodshed,--nay, is even represented as hardening the heart of Pharaoh, that an occasion might be found for pouring a long series of troubles and desolations on the land,--because the plan actually chosen was of such a kind, many have not scrupled to denounce it as unworthy of God, and more befitting a cruel and malignant than a wise and beneficent being.
Now, in rising above this false ground, and the erroneous conclusions that naturally spring from it, it is first of all to be borne in mind that higher relations were here concerned, and more important objects at stake, than those of this world. The Israelites were the chosen people of God, standing in a covenant-relation to him, his church. However far most of them had been living beneath their obligations and their calling, they still occupied a position wliicli was held by no other family on earth, With them was identified, in a peculiar sense, the honour of God and the cause of heaven;--and the power that oppressed and afflicted them, was trampling at every step on rights which God had conferred, and provoking the execution of a curse which he had solemnly denounced. If the cause and blessing of heaven were bound up with the Israelites, then Pharaoh, in acting toward them as an enemy and oppressor, must of necessity have espoused the interest and become liable to the doom of Satan.
Besides, it must be carefully borne in mind, that here especially, where God had immediately to work, his dealings and dispensations were of a preparatory nature. They were planned and executed in anticipation of the grand work of redemption, which was afterwards to be accomplished by Christ, and were consequently directed in such a manner as to embody on the comparatively small scale of their earthly transactions and interests, the truths and principles which were afterwards to be developed in the affairs of a divine and everlasting kingdom. [1] This being the case, the deliverance of Israel from the land of Egypt must have been distinguished at least by the following features:--1. It must, in the first instance, have appeared to be a work of peculiar difficulty---requiring to be accomplished in the face of very great and powerful obstacles--rescuing the people from the strong grasp of an enemy, who though a cruel tyrant and usurper, yet, on account of their sin, had acquired over them a lordly dominion, and by means of terror kept them subject to bondage. 2. Then, from this being the case, the deliverance must necessarily have been effected by the execution of judgment upon the adversary; so that as the work of judgment proceeded on the one hand, the work of deliverance would proceed on the other, and the freedom of the covenant people be completely achieved, only when the principalities and powers which held them in bondage were utterly spoiled and vanquished. 3. Finally, this twofold process of salvation with destruction, must have been of a kind fitted to call forth the peculiar powers and perfections of Godhead, so that all who witnessed it, or to whom the knowledge of it should come, might be constrained to own and admire the wonder-working hand of God, and instinctively, as it were, exclaim, "Behold what God hath wrought! It is his doing, and marvellous in our eyes,"--We say, all this must have been on the supposition of the scriptural account of the work being taken; and excepting on that supposition we have no right to give any judgment concerning it, or if we do, we shall certainly judge amiss.
On this scriptural ground we take our stand, when proceeding to examine the affairs connected with this method of deliverance, and we assert them not only to be capable of a satisfactory vindication, but to have been incapable of serving the purposes which they were designed to accomplish, if they had not been ordered substantially as they were. It is manifestly impossible that here, any more than in what afterwards befel Christ, the order of events should have been left to any lawless power, working as it pleased, but that all must have been arranged "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," and arranged precisely as they occurred. The outstretching of the divine arm to inflict the most desolating judgments on the land of Egypt, the slaying of the first-born, and the overthrow of Pharaoh and his host, were essential parts of the divine plan. But since these appear as the result of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, this also must have formed an essential element in the plan; and was therefore announced to Moses from the first as an event that might certainly be expected, and which would give a peculiar direction to the whole series of transactions. [2] For this hardening of the heart of Pharaoh was the very hinge, in a sense, on which the divine plan turned, and could least of all be left to chance or uncertainty. It presents itself, not simply as an obstacle to be removed, but as a circumstance to be employed for securing a more illustrious display of the glorious attributes of God, and effecting the redemption of his people in the way most consistent with his righteous purposes. It could not, therefore, be allowed to hang merely upon the will of Pharaoh; somehow the hand of God must have been in the matter, as it belongs to him to settle and arrange all that concerns the redemption of his people, and the manifestation of his own glory. Nor, otherwise, could there have been any security for the divine plan proceeding to its accomplishment, or for its possessing such features as might render it a fitting preparation for the greater redemption that was to come.
It seems to us impossible to look at the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in the connection which it thus holds with the entire plan of God, or to consider the marked and distinct manner in which it is ascribed to his agency, and yet to speak of Pharaoh being simply allowed to harden his own heart, as presenting a sufficient explanation of the case. It is true, he is often affirmed also to have himself hardened his heart; and in the very first announcement of it (ch. iii 19, "I am sure, or rather, I know that the King of Egypt will not let you go,") as acutely remarked by Baumgarten, "the Lord characterizes the resistance of Pharaoh as an act of freedom, existing apart from the Lord himself; for I know that which objectively stands out and apart from me," [3] At the same time, it is justly noticed by Hengstenberg, that as the hardening is ascribed to God, both in the announcement of it beforehand, and in the subsequent recapitulation (Ex. iv. 21, vii. 3, xi. 10), "Pharaoh's hardening appears to be enclosed within that of God's, and to be dependent on it. It seems also to be intentional, that the hardening is chiefly ascribed to Pharaoh at the beginning of the plagues, and to God toward the end. The higher the plagues rise, the more does Pharaoh's hardening assume a supernatural character, and the reference was the more likely to be made to its supernatural cause." [4]
The conclusion, indeed, is inevitable. It is impossible, by any fair
interpretation of Scripture, or on any profound view of the
transactions referred to, to get rid of the divine agency in the
matter. Even Tholuck says, "That the hardening of the Egyptian was, on
one side, ordained by God, no disciple of Christian theology can deny.
It is an essential doctrine of the Bible, that God would not permit
evil, unless he were Lord over it; and that he permits it, because it
cannot act as a check upon his plan of the world, but must be equally
subservient to him as good--the only difference being, that the former
is so compulsorily, the latter optionally." [5] That God had no hand in
the sin? which mingles itself with evil, is clearly implied in the
general doctrine of Scripture; since he everywhere appears there as the
avenger of sin, and hence cannot possibly be in any sense its author.
In so far, therefore, as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart partook of
sin, it must have been altogether his own; his conduct, considered as a
course of heady and high minded opposition to the divine will, was
pursued in the free, though unrighteous exercise of his own judgment.
This, however, does not hinder, that there should have been a direct
and positive agency of God in the matter, to the effect of determining
both the manner and extent of the opposition. "It is in the power of
the wicked to sin," says St Augustine, "but that in sinning they do
this or that by their wickedness, is not in their own power, but in
God's, who divides and arranges the darkness." [6] To the same purpose,
and still more distinctly, the Westminster Confession of Faith: "God's
providence extendeth itself to all sins of angels and men, and that not
by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and
powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing them, in a
manifold dispensation, unto his own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness
thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God." It is
wholly chargeable on man himself, if there is a sinful disposition at
work in his bosom; but that disposition existing there, and resisting
the means which God employs to subdue it, the man has no longer any
control over the course and issue of events. This is entirely in the
hands of God, to be directed by him in the way, and turned into the
form and channel which is best adapted to promote the ends of his
righteous government. "He places the sinner in such situations, that
precisely this or that temptation shall assail him---links the thoughts
to certain determinate objects of sinful desire, and secures their
remaining attached to these, and not starting off to others. The hatred
in the heart belonged to Shimei himself; but it was God's work that
this hatred should settle so peculiarly upon David, and should shew
itself in exactly the manner it did. It was David's own fault that he
became elated with pride; the course of action which this pride was to
take, was accidental, so far as he was concerned; it belonged to God,
who turns the hearts of kings, like the rivers of waters. Hence it is
said, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, 'The anger of the Lord was kindled against
Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and
Judah.' Yet was he not thereby in the least justified, and therefore,
v. 10, he confesses that he had sinned greatly, and prays the Lord to
take away his iniquity." [7]
Now, applying these views to the case of Pharaoh, it was certainly his own proud and wicked heart which prompted him to refuse the command of God to let Israel go. But he might have retained that disposition in all its force, and yet have acted differently from what he did. Mere selfishness, or considerations of policy, might have induced him to restrain it, as from like motives, not from any proper change of heart, his magicians first, and afterwards his counsellors, appear to have wished, (Ex. viii. 19 ; x. 7.) But the hand of God exerted such control over him, so bounded and hedged him in, that while he clung to the evil principle, he must pursue his infatuated and fool-hardy course; this one path lay open to him. And for his doing so, two things were necessary, and in these the action of Omnipotence was displayed:--1. First, the strong and courageous disposition capable of standing fast under formidable dangers, and grappling with gigantic difficulties--a natural endowment, which could only have been derived from God. That such a disposition should have been possessed in so eminent a degree by the Pharaoh who then occupied the throne of Egypt, was the result of God's agency, though Pharaoh alone was responsible for its abuse. 2. But, besides, there was needed such a disposal of circumstances as might tend to prompt and stimulate to the utmost this disposition of Pharaoh; for otherwise it might have lain comparatively dormant, or, at least, might have been far from running such a singularly perverse and infatuated course. Here also the hand of God manifested its working. It was he who, in the language of Tholuck, "brought about those circumstances, which made the heart disposed to evil still harder." Many writers, who substantially admit this, limit the circumstances tending to produce the result in question to the lenity and forbearance of God, in so readily and frequently releasing Pharaoh from the execution of judgment. There can be no doubt that this was one of the circumstances which, on such a mind as his, would be fitted to produce a hardening effect; but it was not the only, nor the chief one; there were others, which must have had a still more powerful tendency in the same direction, and which were also more properly judicial in their character. Such, in the first instance, and most evidently; was the particular kind of miracles which Moses was instructed to work at the commencement of his operations--the transforming of his rod into a serpent, and back again to a rod; for this was precisely the field on which Pharaoh might be tempted to think he could successfully compete with Moses, and might rival, at least, if not outdo, the pretended messengers of heaven. However inexplicable the fact may be, of the fact itself there can be no question, that, from time immemorial the art of working extraordinary, and to all appearance supernatural effects on serpents, has been practised by a particular class of persons in Egypt. Many of the ancients have written of the wonderful exploits of the Psylli, as they are called, and celebrated their magical power, both to charm serpents at their will, and to resist unharmed the bites of the most venomous species. And it would seem by the accounts of some of the most recent inquirers, that descendants of the ancient brotherhood still exist in Egypt, forming an association by themselves, and able, by some means unknown to any but themselves, to handle without fear or injury the most noxious serpents, to walk abroad with numbers of them, coiling around their necks and arms, and to make certainly one species of them rigid like a rod, and feign themselves dead. [8] It is also certain, that when they do these wonders, they are in a sort of phrenzied or ecstatical condition, and are believed by the multitude to be under divine influence. That this charming influence was, at least in its origin and earlier stages, the offspring to some extent of demoniacal power, is not inconsistent with what Scripture testifies concerning the workings of that power generally, and is most naturally implied in the particular statements made respecting the magicians when contending with Moses. For although we might, without much violence to the interpretation of the text, suppose it to represent that as being done, which to all appearance was done, without being understood positively to affirm that the effect was actually produced; yet the language used of their changing the rods into serpents, and on a small scale also turning water into blood, and producing frogs, does in its proper import indicate something supernatural--corresponding, as we conceive, to the wonders of the demoniacal possessions of our Lord's time, and still more closely perhaps to "the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders," which is made to characterize the coming of Antichrist (Matt. xxiv. 23 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; Eev. xiii. 13). But even without pressing this, the mere fact of there being then a class of persons in the service of Pharaoh, who themselves pretended, and were generally believed to be possessed of a divine power to work the wonders in question, must evidently have acted as a temptation with Pharaoh to resist the demands of Moses, being confident of his ability to contend with him on this peculiar field of prodigies. And having fairly ventured on the field of conflict, we can easily understand how, with a proud and heaven-defying temper like his, he would scorn to own himself vanquished ; even though the miraculous working of Moses clearly established its superiority to any act or power possessed by the magicians, and they themselves were at last compelled to retire from the field, owning the victory to be Jehovah's.
This, however, was only one class of the circumstances which were arranged by God, and fitted to harden the heart of Pharaoh. To the same account we must also place the progressive nature of the demands made upon him, in beginning first with a request for leave of three days' absence to worship God; then, when this was granted for all who were properly capable of taking part in the service, insisting on the same liberty being extended to the wives and children; and, again, when even this was conceded, claiming to take with them also their flocks and herds: so that it became evident an entire escape from the land was meditated. There was no deceit, as the adversaries of revelation have sometimes alleged, in this gradual opening of the divine plan; nor, when the last and largest demand was made, was more asked than Pharaoh should from the first have voluntarily granted. But so little was sought at the beginning, to make the unreasonableness of his conduct more distinctly apparent, and the gradual and successive enlargement of the demand was intended to act as a temptation, to prove him, and bring out the real temper of his heart.
Finally, of the same character also was the last movement of heaven in this marvellous chain of providences--the leading of the children of Israel, as into a net, between the Red Sea and the mountains of the wilderness, fitted, as it so manifestly was, to suggest the thought to Pharaoh, when he had recovered a little from his consternation, and felt the humiliation of his defeat, that now an opportunity presented itself of retrieving his lost honour, and with one stroke avenging himself on his enemies. He was thus tempted, in the confidence of victory, to renew the conflict, and, when apparently sure of his prey, was led, by the opening of the sea for the escape of the Israelites, and the removal of the divine cloud to the rear, so as to cover their flight, into the fatal snare which involved him in destruction. In the whole, we see the directing and controlling agency of God, not in the least interfering with the liberty of Pharaoh, or obliging him to sin, but still, in judgment for his sinful oppression of the church of God, and unjust resistance to the claims of heaven, placing him in situations which, though fitted to influence aright a well constituted mind, were also fitted, when working on such a temperament as his, to draw him into the extraordinary course he took, and to render the series of transactions, as they actually occurred, a matter of moral certainty. [9]
But to return to the wonders which Moses was commissioned to perform: it is to be borne in mind, that the humiliation of Pharaoh was not their only design, nor even the redemption of Israel their sole end. The manifestation of God's own glory was here, as in all his works, the highest object in view; and this required that the powers of Egyptian idolatry, with which the interest of Satan was at that time peculiarly identified, should be brought into the conflict, and manifestly confounded. For this reason, also, it was that the first wonders wrought had such distinct reference to the exploits of the magicians or serpent-charmers, who were the wonder-workers connected with that gigantic system of idolatry, and the main instruments of its support and credit in the world. They were thus naturally drawn, as well as Pharaoh, into the contest, and became, along with him, the visible heads and representatives of the a "spiritual wickednesses" of Egypt. And since they refused to own the supremacy, and accede to the demands of Jehovah, on witnessing that first, and as it may be called, harmless triumph of his power over theirs--since they resolved, as the adversaries of God's and the instruments of Satan's interest, in the world, to prolong the contest, there remained no alternative but to visit the land with a series of judgments, such as might clearly prove the utter impotence of its fancied deities to protect their votaries from the might and vengeance of the living God. It is when considered in this point of view, that we see the agreement in principle between the wonders proceeding from the instrumentality of Moses, and those wrought by the hand of Christ. They seem at first sight to be entirely opposite in their character, the one being severe and desolating plagues, the other, miracles of mercy and healing. This seeming contrariety arises from their having been wrought on entirely different fields--those of Moses on an avowedly hostile territory, those of Christ on a land and among a people that were peculiarly his own. But as in both cases alike there was a mighty adversary, whose power and dominion were to be brought down, so the display given in each of miraculous working, told with the same effect on his interest, though somewhat less conspicuously in the one case than in the other. While Christ's works were, in the highest sense, miracles of mercy, supernatural acts of beneficence towards "his own," they were, at the same time, triumphant displays of divine over satanic agency, "The Son of God was manifested to destroy the works of the devil." As often as his hand was stretched out to heal, it dealt a blow to the cause of the adversary; and the crowning part of the Eedeemer's work on earth, his dying the accursed death of the cross, was that which at once perfected the plan of mercy for the faithful, and judged and spoiled the prince of darkness. In like manner, we see mercy and judgment going hand in hand in the wonders that were done by the instrumentality of Moses on the "field of Zoan"--only from that being the field of the adversary, and the wonders being done directly upon him, the judgment comes more prominently into view. It was essentially a religious contest between the God of heaven on the one side, and the powers of Egyptian idolatry on the other, as represented by Pharaoh and his host; and as one stroke after another was inflicted by the arm of Omnipotence, there was discovered the nothingness of the divinities whose cause Pharaoh maintained, and in whose power he trusted, while "the God of Israel triumphed gloriously, and in mercy led forth the people whom he had redeemed, to his holy habitation."
It is not necessary that we should shew, by a minute examination of each of the plagues, how excellently they were fitted to expose the futility of Egyptian idolatry, and to shew how entirely everything there was at the disposal of the God of Israel, whether for good or evil. The total number of the plagues was ten, indicating their completeness for the purposes intended by their infliction. The first nine were but preparatory, like the miraculous works which Christ performed during his active ministry; the last was the great act of judgment, which was to carry with it the complete prostration of the adversary, and the deliverance of the covenant people. It was, therefore, from the first announced, as the grand means to be employed for the accomplishment of Israel's redemption (Ex, iv. 22, 23). But the preceding miracles were by no means unnecessary, as they tended to disclose the absolute sovereignty of Jehovah over the whole province of nature, as well as over the lives of men (which came out in the last plague), and his power to turn whatever was known of natural good in Egypt into an instrument of evil, and to aggravate the evil into tenfold severity. This was manifestly the general design; and it is not necessary to prove, either that these plagues were quite different in their nature from anything commonly known in Egypt, or that each one of them struck upon some precise feature of the existing idolatry. In reference to the first of these points, we by no means think, with Heiigstenberg, that in the natural phenomena of Egypt there was a corresponding evil to each one of the plagues, and that the plague only consisted in the supernatural degree to which the common evil was carried; nor can any proof be adduced in support of this at all satisfactory. But as the evil principle (Typhon) was worshipped in Egypt not less than the good, and worshipped, doubtless, because of his supposed power over the hurtful influences of nature, [10] we might certainly expect that some at least of the plagues, would appear to be only an aggravation of the natural evils to which that land was peculiarly exposed; so that these, as well as its genial and beneficent properties, might be seen to be under the control of Jehovah. Of this kind unquestionably was the third plague (that of lice, or, as is now generally agreed, of the gnats, with which Egypt peculiarly abounds, and which all travellers, from Herodotus to those of the present day, concur in representing as a source of great trouble and annoyance in that country). [11] Of the same kind, also, was the plague of flies, which swarm in Egypt, of all sorts, and that also of the locusts; [12] to which we may add the plague of boils, which Scripture itself mentions as of frequent occurrence in Egypt (Deut. xxviii. 27). But while we can easily account for the production, on a gigantic scale, of these natural evils, the same object, viz. the executing of judgment upon the gods of Egypt, would also lead us to expect other plagues of an entirely different kind, in which the natural good was restrained, and even converted into a source of evil. For in this way alone could confusion be poured upon the worship of the good principle, and which, there as elsewhere, took the form of a deification of the genial and productive powers of nature. Some of these belonged to Egypt in a quite extraordinary degree, and were regarded as constituting its peculiar glory. Such especially was the Nile, which was looked upon as identical with Osiris, the highest god, and to which Pharaoh himself is evidently represented as paying divine honours, in Ex. vii. 15 ; viii. 20. [13] Such, also, are its almost cloudless sky and ever-brilliant sun, rendering the climate so singularly clear and settled, that a shade is seldom, to be seen; and not only the more violent tempests, but even the gentlest showers of rain are a rarity. Hence, of the earlier plagues, the two first--those of the turning of the water into blood, and the frogs--took the form of a judgment upon the Nile, converting it from being the most beneficial and delightful, into the most noxious and loathsome of terrestrial objects; while in the later plagues, of the tempest and the thick darkness, the Egyptians saw their crystal atmosphere and resplendent heavens suddenly compelled to wear an aspect of indescribable terror and appalling gloom. So that whether nature were worshipped there, in respect to her benignant or her hurtful influences, the plagues actually inflicted were equally adapted to confound the gods of Egypt--in the one case by changing the natural good into its opposite evil, and in the other by imparting to the natural evil a supernatural force and intensity. [14]
Taking this general and comprehensive view of the preliminary plagues, it will easily be seen that there is no need for our seeking to find in each of them a special reference to some individual feature of Egyptian idolatry. If they struck at the root of that system in what might be called its leading principles, there was obviously no necessity for dealing a separate and successive blow against its manifold shades and peculiarities of false worship. For this an immensely greater number than nine or ten would have been required. And as it is, in attempting to connect even these ten with the minutise of Egyptian idolatry, much that is fanciful and arbitrary must be resorted to. So long as we keep to the general features and design, the bearing of the wonders wrought can be made plain enough ; but those who would lead us more into detail, take for granted what is not certain, and sometimes even affirm what is manifestly absurd. To say, for example, that the plague of flies had any peculiar reference to the worship of Baal-zebub, the Fly-god, assumes a god to have been worshipped there, who is not known for certain to have had a place in the mythology of Egypt. It is equally arbitrary to connect the plague of locusts with the worship of Serapis. And it is surely to draw pretty largely on one's credulity, to speak of the miracle on the serpents as intended to destroy these, on account of their being the objects of worship,--or to set forth the plague on cattle as aimed at the destruction of the entire system of brute worship, as if no cattle were killed in Egypt, because the Deity was there worshipped under that symbol! [15] The general argument is weakened by being coupled with such puerilities, and the grand impression also, which, the wonders were designed to produce, would have been flittered down and impaired, rather than deepened, by so many allusions to the mere details of the system.
But now, when God had by the first nine plagues vindicated his power over all that was naturally good or evil in Egypt, and had thus smitten with judgment their nature-worship in both of its leading characteristics, the adversary being still determined to maintain his opposition, it was time to inflict that last and greatest judgment, the execution of which was from the first designed to be the death-blow of the adversary, and the signal of Israel's deliverance. This was the slaying of the first-born, in which the Lord manifested his dominion over the highest region of life. Indeed, in this respect, there is clearly discernible, as was already noticed by Aben-ezra and other Jewish writers, [16] a gradual ascent in the plagues from the lower to the higher provinces of nature, which also tends to confirm the view we have presented of their character and design. The first two come from beneath--from the waters, which may be said to be under the earth; the next two from the ground or surface of the earth; the murrain of beasts and the boils on men belong to the lower atmosphere, as the tempest, the showers of locusts, and the darkness, to the higher; so that one only remains, that which is occupied by the life of man, and which stands in immediate connection with the divine power and glory. And, as in the earlier plagues, God separated between the land of Goshen and the rest of Egypt, to shew that he was not only the Supreme Jehovah, but also the covenant God of Israel, so in this last and crowning act of judgment, it was especially necessary, that while the stroke of death fell upon every dwelling of Egypt, the habitations of Israel should be preserved in perfect peace and safety. But two questions naturally arise here: why in this judgment upon the life of man should precisely the first-born have been slain? and if the judgment was for the overthrow of the adversary and the redemption of Israel, why should a special provision have been required to save Israel also from the plague?
1. In regard to the first of these points, there can be no doubt that the slaying of the first-born of Egypt had respect to the relation of Israel to Jehovah: "Israel," said God, "is my son, my first-born--if thou refuse to let him go, I will slay thy son, thy first-born" (Ex. iv. 20-22). But in what sense could Israel be called God's first-born son? Something more is plainly indicated by the expression, though no more is very commonly found in it, than that Israel was peculiarly dear to God, had a sort of firstborn's interest in his regard. It implies this, no doubt, but it also goes deeper, and points to the divine origin of Israel as the seed of promise--in their birth the offspring of grace, as contradistinguished from nature. Such pre-eminently was Isaac, the first-born of the family, the type of all that was to follow; and such now were the whole family, when grown into a people, as contra-distinguished from the otter nations of the earth. They were not the whole that were to occupy this high and distinctive relation; they were but the beginning of the holy seed--the firstborn of Jehovah--the first fruits of a redeemed world, which in the fulness was to comprehend "all kindreds, peoples, and tongues," Hence the promise to Abraham was, that he should be the father, not of one, but "of many nations," But these first-fruits represent the whole, and, themselves alone existing as yet, might now be said to comprehend the whole. If they were to be destroyed, the rest cannot come into existence--for a redeemed Israel was the only seed-corn of a redeemed world--but if they should be saved, their salvation would be the pledge and type of the salvation of all. And, therefore, to make it clearly manifest, that God was here acting upon the principle, which connects the first-fruits with the whole lump, acting not for that one family merely, and that moment of time then present, but for his people of every kindred and of every age, he takes that principle for the very ground of his great judgment on the enemy, and the redemption thence accruing to his people. As the first-born in God's elect family is to be spared and rescued, so the first-born in the house of the enemy, the beginning of his increase, and the heir of his substance, must be destroyed--the one a proof, that the whole family were appointed to life and blessing, the other, in like manner, a proof that all who were aliens from God's covenant of grace, equally deserved, and should certainly in due time inherit the evils of perdition.
2. In regard to the other question which concerns Israel's liability to the judgment which fell upon Egypt, this arose from Israel's natural relation to the world, just as their redemption was secured by their spiritual relation to God. For, whether viewed in their individual, or in their collective capacity, they were in themselves of Egypt--collectively, a part of the nation, still without a separate and independent existence of their own, vassals of the enemy, and inhabitants of his doomed territory-- individually, also, partakers of the guilt and corruption of Egypt. It is the mercy and grace alone of God's covenant which makes them to differ from those around them; and therefore, to show that while, as children of the covenant, the plague should not come nigh them, not a hair of their head should perish, they still were in themselves no better than others, and had nothing whereof to boast, it was, at the same time, provided that their exemption from judgment should be secured only by the blood of atonement. This blood of the lamb, slain and sprinkled upon their door-posts, was the sign between them and God--the sign on his part, that, according to the purport of his covenant, he accepted a ransom in their behalf, in respect to which he would spare them, "as a man spareth his son;"--and the sign on their part, that they owned the God of Abraham as their God, and claimed a share in the privileges which He so freely vouchsafed to them. Thus, in their case, "mercy rejoiced against judgment,"--yet, so as clearly to manifest, that had they been dealt with on the score of merit, and with respect merely to what they were in themselves, they too must have perished under the rebuke of heaven.
It was in consideration of the perfectly gratuitous nature of this salvation, and to give due prominence and perpetuity to the principle on which the judgment and the mercy alike proceeded, that the Lord now claimed the first-born of Israel as peculiarly his own (Ex. xiii). The Israelites in their collective capacity were his first-born, and as such were saved from death, the just desert and doom of sin which others inherited; but within that election there was henceforth to be another election--a first-born among these first-born, who, as having been the immediate subjects of the divine deliverance, were to be peculiarly devoted to him. They were to be set apart, or literally, "to be made to pass over to God" (Ex. xiii. 12), leaving what might be called the more common ground of duty and service, and connecting themselves with that which belonged exclusively to himself. It implied that they had in a sense derived a new life from God--lived out of death, and, consequently, were bound to show that they did so, by living in a new manner, in a course of holy consecration to the Lord. This was strikingly taught in the ordinance regarding the first-born of cattle and beasts, of which the clean were to be presented as an offering to the Lord, that is, wholly given up to him by death (Ex. xxii 29, 30 ; xxxiv. 19, 20), while in the case of the unclean, such as the ass, a lamb was to be sacrificed in its stead. The meaning evidently was, that the kind of consecration to himself which the Lord sought from the first-born, as it sprung from an act of redemption, saving them from guilt and death, so it was to be made good by a separation, on the one hand, from what was morally unclean, and, on the other, by a self-dedication to all holy and spiritual services. But, then, as the redemption in which they had primarily participated was accorded to them in their character as the first-fruits, the representatives of their respective households, and all the households equally shared with them in the deliverance achieved, so it was manifestly the mind of God, that their state and calling should be regarded as substantially belonging to all, and that in them were only to be seen the more eminent and distinguished examples of what should characterise the whole body. Hence the people were in one mass presently addressed as "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation" (Ex. xix, 6)---called to be universally what the first-born were called to be pre-eminently and peculiarly. In short, as these firstborn had been as to their redemption the proxies, in a manner, of the whole, so were they in their subsequent consecration to be the symbolical lights and patterns of the whole. Nor was any change in this respect made by the substitution of the tribe of Levi in their room (Num. iii. 12). For this, as will appear in its proper place, was only the supplanting of a less by a more perfect arrangement, which was also done in such a way as to render most distinctly manifest the representative character of the tribe, which entered into the place of the first-born;--so that we see here, at the very outset, what was Grod's aim in the redemption of his people, and how it involved, not simply their release from the thraldom and the oppression of Egypt, but also their standing in a peculiar relation to himself, and their call to show forth his glory. We perceive in this act of redemption the kernel of all that was afterwards developed, as to do duty and privilege, by the revelations of law and the institutions of worship. And we see also what a depth of meaning there is in the expression used in Heb, xii. 23, where it is represented as the ennobling distinction of Christians, that they have "come to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven." To designate the church as that of the first-born, is to present it to our view in its highest character as being in a state of most blessed nearness to God, having a peculiar interest in his favour, and a singular destination to advance his kingdom and glory. United to such a company, we are in a manner told, nothing shall be wanting that is needed to secure our well-being; redemption is ours, with its sure deliverance from evil, and its rich inheritance of life and blessing; the destroyer cannot hurt us, for we dwell beneath the shade of the Almighty--dwell there as the heirs of his fulness, enrolled members of his everlasting kingdom, who have been ransomed from the yoke of servitude, to live henceforth to his glory, and minister and serve before him. [16]
When we come to consider the commemorative institution of the Passover, we shall see how admirably its services were adapted to bring out and exhibit to the eye of the church the great principles of truth and duty, which were involved in the memorable event in providence we have now been reviewing. But before we leave the consideration of it as an act of providence, there is another point connected with it, at which we would briefly glance, and one in which the Egyptians and Israelites were both concerned. We refer to what has been not less unscripturally than unhappily called "the borrowing of jewels" from the Egyptians by the Israelites on the eve of their departure. [17] That the sacred text in the original gives no countenance to this false view of the transaction, we have explained in the note below; and, indeed, the whole circumstances of the case render it quite incredible, that there should have been a borrowing and lending in the proper sense of the term. It is not conceivable that now, when Moses had refused to move, unless they were allowed to take with them all their flocks and herds, any thought should have been entertained of their return. Nor could this, at such a time, have been wished by any; for after the land had been smitten by so many plagues on account of them, and when, especially by the last awful judgment every heart was paralyzed with fear and trembling, the desire of the Egyptians must have run entirely in the opposite direction. Such we are expressly told was the case, for "the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men," Besides, what possible use could they have had for articles of gold, silver, and apparel, if they were only to be absent for a few days? The very request must have betrayed the intention, and the utmost credulity on the part of the Egyptians could not have induced them, to give on such a supposition. It is farther evident, that this must have been the general understanding in Egypt, from the numbers "the mixed multitude," as they are called, who went along with the Israelites, and who must have gone with them under the impression, that the Israelites were taking a final leave of Egypt, Hence the reasoning of Calvin and other commentators, who, under the idea of its being a proper borrowing and lending, endeavour to justify the transaction by resting on the absolute authority of God, who has a right to command what he pleases, falls of itself to the ground. Nor even as a piece of reasoning does it fairly meet the point at issue; for the unchangeably righteous God could never enjoin upon his creatures as a duty, what, as practised between man and man, would involve a manifest dishonesty or injustice.
Now, that this giving on the part of the Egyptians, and receiving on the part of the Israelites, was intimately connected with God's great work of judgment on the one, and mercy to the other, is manifest from the place it holds in the Divine record. It was already foretold to Abraham, that his posterity should come forth from the land of their oppression with much substance. That the prediction should be fulfilled in this particular way, was declared to Moses in God's first interview with him (Ex. iii. 21, 22). And both then, and immediately before it took place, and still again when it did take place, the Lord constantly spoke of it as his own doing, a result accomplished by the might of his outstretched arm upon the Egyptians. We can never imagine, that so much account would have been made of it, if the whole end to be served, had simply been to provide the Israelites with a certain supply of goods and apparel. A much higher object was unquestionably aimed at. As regards the Egyptians, it was a part of the judgment, which God was now visiting upon them for their past misdeeds, and which here, as not unfrequently happened, was made to take a form analogous to the sin it was designed to chastise. Thus, in another age, when the Israelites themselves became the objects of chastisement, they said, "We will flee upon horses; therefore (said God), ye shall flee, and they that pursue you shall be swift" (Isa. xxx. 16). And again, in Jeremiah, "Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not yours" (ch. v. 19). In like manner here, the Egyptians had been long acting the part of oppressors of God's people, seeking by the most harsh and tyrannical measures, to weaken and impoverish them. And now, when God comes down to avenge their cause, he constrains Egypt to furnish them with a rich supply of her treasures and goods. No art or violence was needed on their part to accomplish this; the thing was in a manner done to their hand. The enemies themselves became at last so awed and moved by the strong hand of God upon them, that they would do anything to hasten forward his purpose. Their proud and stubborn hearts bow beneath his arm, like tender willows before the blast; and they feel impelled by an irresistible power to send forth, with honour and great substance, the very people they had so long been unjustly trampling under foot. What a triumphant display of the sovereign might and dominion of God over the adversaries of his church! What a striking manifestation of the truth, that He can not only turn their counsels into foolishness, but also render them unconscious instruments of promoting his cause and glory in the world! And what a convincing proof of the folly of those, who would enrich themselves at the expense of God's interest, or would enviously prevent his people from obtaining what they absolutely need of worldly means to accomplish the service He expects at their hands!
Yet palpable as these lessons were, and affectingly brought home to the bosoms of the Egyptians, they proved insufficient to disarm their hostility. The pride of their monarch was only for the moment quelled, not thoroughly subdued; and as soon as he had recovered from the recoil of feeling, which the stroke of God's judgment had produced, he summoned all his might to avenge on Israel the defeat he had sustained--but only with the effect of leaving, in his example, a more memorable type of the final destruction that is certain to overtake the adversaries of God. In a few days more the shores of the Bed sea resounded with the triumphant song of Moses: "I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. . . . The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name. Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea; his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power; thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy. And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth, thy wrath which consumed them as stubble. And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together," &c. How closely connected the act of victorious judgment here celebrated is with future acts of a like kind--how, especially, it was intended to foreshadow the final putting down of all power and authority, that exalts itself against the kingdom of Christ, is manifest from Rev. xv. 3, where the glorious company above are represented as singing at once the song of Moses and of the Lamb, in the immediate prospect of the last judgments of God, and of all nations being thereby led to come and worship before him. It is also in language entirely similar, and indeed manifestly borrowed from that song of Moses, that the Apostle, in 2 Thess. ii. 8, describes the sure destruction of Antichrist, "whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit (or breath) of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming," Overlooking the Scriptural connection between the earlier and the later here in God's dealings, between the type and the antitype-- overlooking, too, the rise that has taken place in the position of the Church, and its relations to the world, by the introduction of Christianity, many writers are now seeking to fasten upon those prophetic passages of the New Testament an interpretation, which is too grossly literal even for the original passage in the Old--as if nothing would fulfil their import, but a corporeally present Saviour, inflicting corporeal and overwhelming judgments on adversaries in the flesh. The work of judgment celebrated in the song of Moses is ascribed entirely to the Lord: It is He who throws the host of Pharaoh into the sea, and by the strength of his arm lays the enemy low. But did He do so, by being corporeally present? or, did He work without any inferior instrumentality? Was there literally a stretching out of His own arm? or, did He actually send forth a blast from His nostrils? But if no one would affirm such things in regard to the overthrow of Pharaoh, how much less should it be affirmed in regard to the destruction of Antichrist, with his ungodly retainers? Here, the Church has to do, not with a single individual, an actual king and his warlike host, as in the case of Pharaoh, but with an anti christian system and its wide-spread adherents; and the real victory must be won, not by acts of violence and bloodshed, but by the spiritual weapons, which shall undermine the strongholds of error and diffuse the light of divine truth. Whenever the Lord gives power to those weapons to overcome, he substantially repeats anew the judgment of the Red sea; and when all that exalteth itself against the knowledge of Christ shall be put down by the victorious energy of the truth, then shall be the time to sing the song of Moses and of the Lamb.
1. Vol. 1. Book I. c. 3.
2. Ex. iii. 19; iv. 21.
3. Commentary on Ex. iii 19, 20.
4. Authentie, ii. p. 462. Some stress is laid by Hengstenberg on the hardening being ascribed seven times to Pharaoh, and the same number of times to God, as indicating that it has respect to the covenant of God, of which seven is the sign. Baumgarten also lays some stress on the numbers, but finds each to be ten times repeated, the sign of completeness. Both have to deal arbitrarily with the sacred text to make out their respective numbers (for example, Hengstenberg leaves out the three hardenings of God in ch. xiv. and Baumgarten treats ch. vii. 13 and 14, as if they spoke of two distinct hardenings,) It is also against the simplicity of the Scripture narrative to draw from the mere form of its historical statements such hidden meanings.
5. On Rom. ix. 19, note furnished to English translation, Bib. Cab. xii. p. 249. Bush, however, in his notes on Exodus, still speaks of the mere permission as sufficient: " God is said to have done it, because he permitted it to be done." His criticism on the words does not in the least contribute to help this meaning. Dean Graves, as Arminian writers generally, holds the same view. (Works, Vol. III. p. 321, &c.)
6. Liber, de Predestinatione Sanctorum, § 33.
7. Antlientie, II. p. 466. See also Calvin's Institutes, B. I. c. 18, and B. II. c. 4, for the proof, rather than the explanation, of the fact, that "bare permission is too weak to stand, and that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for the providence of God, as if he sat in a watch-tower, waiting for fortuitous events, his judgments meanwhile depending on the will of man."
8. See the quotations from the ancients in Bochart, Hieroz. ii. p. 393 and 4; and for the accounts of the moderns, Hengstenberg's Egypt and Books of Moses, p, 98-103. Among these are the testimonies of the French savants, who were quite incredulous before they investigated the affair, as to there being any thing more than common sleight-of- hand in it, but who were obliged to confess that "they saw things so wonderful that they could no longer consider the art as entirely chimerical."
9. We have spoken of Pharaoh himself having perished in the overthrow at the Red Sea; and such seems the natural import of Scripture on the subject, although it is not expressly asserted. Wilkinson thinks the escape of Israel was made in the fourth year of Thothmes III, who reigned in all 39 years. If so, of course he was not personally drowned; but we question whether the interpretation of the hieroglyphics is yet far enough advanced to admit of such definite information being drawn from them in regard to so remote a period. That learned and accomplished individual himself, so far from speaking" dogmatically on the subject, gives Lord Prudhoe's reasons for assigning a considerably later period, and leaves the decision to the learned, as a point regarding which absolute certainty is not attainable.
10. Plutarch, de Iside et Osiride, p. 362, 380. See also the note of Mosheim to Cud- worth's Intellectual System, vol. i. p. 353. Tegg's ed, and Bochart, Hieroz. Lib. ii. c. 34,
11. See the note in the Pictorial Bible on Ex. viii. 17. Also Hengstenberg's Eg. and Books of Moses, for quotations from various authorities.
12. Ibid.
13. Hengstenberg, p. 109, where the authorities are given. Also Vossins, de Origins et Prog. Idolatrise, L. ii. c. 74, 75.
14. We are surprised that Hengstenberg did not see the necessity of the one class of wonders as well as of the other, for the object in view. He has hence laboured to find a corresponding natural evil to all the plagues, and in some of the cases has most palpably laboured in vain. He is at pains to prove, that the Nile, when swollen, has somewhat of a reddish colour, and that it is not without frogs--the wonder, indeed, would be, if it were otherwise in either respect; but he has not produced even the shadow of proof, that these things belonged to it to such an extent as to render it nauseous or unwhole-some, or so much as to suggest the idea of a plague. On the contrary, the redness of the water is rather a sign of its becoming again fit for use. (See Pictorial Bible on Ex. vii. 17.) Then, a great array of authorities is produced (p. 117) to shew, that it has sometimes been known to thunder, and does occasionally rain in Egypt. The proof only amounts to this, that the elements there are capable of assuming such appearances, and in some very partial and trifling instances, actually do so. But no one would scarcely think, on that account, of representing them as natural evils existing there ; and short of that, any proof is beside the purpose. The authorities he refers to on the subject of the darkness and the slaying of the first-born, are scarcely less unsatisfactory.
15. The contrary needs no proof, as every one knows, who is in the
least acquainted with ancient Egypt, that " oxen generally were used
both for food and sacrifice" (Heeren, Af. ii. p. 147), and evidence has
even been found among the ancient documents, of a company of curriers,
or leather-dressers (Ib. p. 137). It is not less absurd to represent
the plague of lice or gnats as done on purpose to afflict Egyptian
idolatry, which permitted no priest to enter a temple with these
creatures on him. There was not much less care to keep the person clean
in the Jewish than in the Egyptian religion, and the plague might as
well be said to reflect in that respect on the Jewish as the Egyptian
rites. Bryant, in his book on the plagues, led the way to these weak
and frivolous opinions, and he has been followed by many without
examination. See, for example, the Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation,
chapter iii.
16. See in Baumgtirten's Commentary, i. p. 459.
17. It is singular how entirely commentators generally have missed the proper force of this passage in Hebrews. The first-born to which Christians are come, says Whitby, are the apostles, who have received the first-fruits of the spirit. But it is of the New Testament church generally, of which the apostles were a part, that the declaration is made; and the explanation amounts simply to this:--Ye who have the first-fruits of the spirit are come to those who have the first-fruits of the spirit! Macknight is no better: --"The first-born of man and beast being reckoned more excellent than the subsequent births, were appropriated to God. Hence the Israelites had the name of God's first-born given them, to show that they belonged to God, and were more excellent than the rest of the nations." Is that all? Is it on such a distinction that God made the Church's redemption and the Christian's hopes to turn?
18. The sense of borrowing was, by a mistranslation of the Septuagint on ch. xii, 367 first given to the Hebrew word. This misled the fathers, who were generally unacquainted with Hebrew, and even Jerome adopted that meaning, though possessed of learning sufficient to detect the error. The Hebrew word is *** which simply means to ask or demand; "Speak now to the ears of the people, and let every man ask of his neighbour jewels (rather, articles) of gold," &c. (ch. xi. 1-3). It is the same word that is used in xii. 36, and which has there so commonly obtained the sense of lending. Here it is in the Hiphil or causeform, and strictly means, "to cause another to ask." Rendered literally, the first part of the verse would stand, "And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and they made them to ask or desire." This can only mean, that the Lord produced such an impression upon the minds of the Egyptians in favour of the Israelites, that, so far from needing to be cozened, or constrained to part with the articles of gold, silver, and apparel, they rather invited the Israelites to ask them: take what you will, we are willing to give all.