Page images
PDF
EPUB

ختن

consummation of marriage, that in both cases there is an offering of blood to the great Deity of nature, and by this offering, this symbolical sacrifice to the God of life, in either case there is a self-consecration to the Deity of life, by which the right of existence is first obtained." Spencer also is of opinion that the meaning of Zipporah's words is: Ritu illo Deo et ecclesiae nostrae, quasi conjugii foedere copulatus es (p. 61 ed. Pfaff.). There is no doubt whatever that circumcision may be regarded in the light of a marriage or union with God, and the use of the Arabic word for circumcision shows that it has been so interpreted. But the idea of there being any reference to connubial intercourse is nothing but a colossal absurdity, and even Spencer's explanation is inadmissible, for Zipporah says: "A blood-bridegroom thou art to me." Aben-Ezra and Kimchi say that the Jews were accustomed to call a newly circumcised child Chatan (though this cannot have been a universal custom, for we find no reference to it anywhere else; Bodenschatz, for example, does not once refer to it): but if so, this only proves that the later Jews gave this interpretation, or rather misinterpretation, to the passage before us.-On the other hand, the whole is perfectly clear, if we understand the words as referring to Moses. Moses had been as good as taken from her, by the deadly attack which had been made upon him. She purchased his life by the blood of her son; she received him back, as it were, from the dead, and married him anew, he was in fact a bridegroom of blood to her. In ver. 26 we read: "She said 'blood-husband' because of the circumcisions (p)." The plural in this

case must either be regarded as an abstract, according to the well-known custom in Hebrew (referring to circumcision in general as a religious rite, which Moses had wished to observe, but which she had hitherto obstinately refused, and not to the particular concrete act), or we may take it as a concrete, and refer it to the circumcision of the two sons.

(4). We learn from Ex. xviii. 2 that Moses sent back his wife and children to his father-in-law. This probably occurred now. The event in the inn had convinced him, that Zipporah was by no means in a proper state of mind to encounter all the dangers which threatened him in Egypt, with equanimity and faith. His brother Aaron's advice may also have led him to adopt this resolution.

VOL. II.

[ocr errors]

(5). It was a most important thing both for Moses and the people, that the latter should believe God on the first interview with Moses. M. Baumgarten has the following apt remarks on this subject: "The text exhibits this declaration of feeling, with which the entire nation responded to the first message from God, as a most important commencement. By faith Israel now proved itself to be the son of Jehovah (ver. 22), for the son believes the father. And the commencement thus made by the seed of Abraham, as a nation, answered to the disposition manifested by their father Abraham himself (Gen. xv. 6). Thus, whatever might be the course henceforth pursued by the nation of Israel, it enjoyed this honour, that its first mental act was faith, in which, though still suffering the severest oppression and hardship, it looked upon the redemption of Israel as already secured.

§ 22 (Ex. v., vi.).—A good beginning was made; the people believed and worshipped. But when Moses and Aaron appeared before Pharaoh, and in the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel, requested him to allow the Israelites to go a three days' journey into the desert (cf. § 22. 4), that they might celebrate a festival in honour of their God, they met with nothing but ridicule and insult (1). "Who is Jehovah," said Pharaoh, “that I should obey his voice? I know nothing of your Jehovah, and will not let Israel go." The king of Egypt, from his heathen point of view, looked upon Jehovah as merely the national god of the Hebrews, who in his estimation was as powerless and contemptible in comparison with the gods of the Egyptians, as the enslaved Israel when compared with the despotic and powerful Egypt. Like people, like god, was his notion; and, to show his contempt of both, he contemptuously increased the oppression under which Israel was groaning. The people, he thought, have too easy a life of it, and hence the wish for liberty is growing up among them; he therefore ordered their task to be doubled, that he might thoroughly eradicate any such desire. Hitherto they had had the material for the work brought to

them; but henceforth they were to get it for themselves, and yet produce as many bricks as before (2). This was beyond their power. They fell into arrears with their deliveries, and their shoterim (or scribes, § 16) were beaten in consequence. They complained to the king of such inhuman proceedings, but their complaints were disregarded. And now the weakness of the people's faith became at once apparent. They heaped reproaches upon Moses and Aaron, for having brought them into deeper misery instead of bringing them relief, and refused to listen to their consolations and promises any more (3). But this only afforded the occasion for a display of the ability of Jehovah both to overcome the incredulity of the people, and break down the opposition of Pharaoh.

(1). The request, that Pharaoh would let the people go a three days' journey into the desert to celebrate a festival, does not seen to have struck the Egyptians as anything surprising. This may possibly be explained on the ground that the Egyptians were in the habit of making similar pilgrimages from time to time. Niebuhr discovered a mountain, called Surabit-el-Khadim, in the desert between Suez and Sinai, the whole plateau of which was covered with fragments of statuary, and pillars overturned, evidently the ruins of a temple, the pillars being crowned with the head of Isis. All the walls, pillars, and fragments, that were left, were covered with Egyptian hieroglyphics, symbols, and representations of priests offering sacrifice. Lord Prudhoe supposes this to have been a sacred spot, to which pilgrimages were made by the ancient Egyptians. The supposition is well founded, though Robinson has expressed a different opinion (Travels, vol. i. 112 -116).

(2). The tributary service referred to here, consisted of the making of bricks for the royal buildings (vid. § 14. 5). Up to this time the straw that was required had been supplied to the Israelites; but henceforth they were ordered to go into the fields and gather it for themselves. The bricks, most extensively used by the Egyptians, were not burnt (as Luther's translation erroneously implies), but dried in the sun. The clay was mixed

with chopped straw to give it the greater consistency. Rosellini brought some bricks from Thebes with the stamp of King Thothmes IV., the fifth king of the 18th dynasty, upon them. On examination, it was found that they were always mixed with straw. Prokesch (Erinnerungen ii. 31) says: "The bricks (of the pyramids at Dashur) are made of the fine mud of the Nile mixed with stubble. This mixture gave to the bricks an inconceivable durability." Hengstenberg (Egypt and Moses, p. 79 transl.), has properly laid stress upon this, as a proof that the author of the account before us possessed a most accurate acquaintance with the customs of Egypt.

L. de Laborde (comment. géogr. p. 18), has the following comment upon this passage. "J'ai assisté aux travaux du canal, et les moyens comme le résultat m'ont semblé en tous points répondre aux versets de l'Exode. Cent mille malheureux remuaient la terre, la plupart avec les mains, parceque le gouvernement n'avait fourni en nombre suffisant que des fouets pour les frapper; les pioches, les pelles et les couffes manquaient. Ces paysans, hommes infirmes, vieillards (les jeunes gens avaient été réservés pour l'armée et la culture des terres) femmes et enfants venaient principalement de la haute Egypte, et étaient répartis sur le cours présumé du canal en escouades plus ou moins nombreuses. L'entreprise était dirigée par des Turcs et des Albanois, qui avaient établi parmi les paysans des conducteurs de travaux responsables de la tâche imposée à chaque masse d'hommes. faut dire, que ces derniers abusaient plus que les autres de l'autorité, qu'ils avaient reçue. Tout ce monde de travailleurs était censé recevoir une paie et une nourriture, mais l'une manquait, depuis le commencement des travaux jusqu'à la fin, l'autre était si précaire, si incertaine, qu'un cinquième des ouvriers mourut daus cette misère sous les coups de fouet, en criant vainement, comme le peuple d'Israel (v. 15, 16), &c.”

[ocr errors]

(3). By modern critics, who suppose that chap. vi. formed part of the original document, and that the previous chapters (iii.-v.) are supplementary, the two passages are regarded as different accounts of one and the same event, whereas according to their present position they form different parts of a continuous narrative. Undoubtedly nearly all the particular details of the call described in chapter vi. are also found in chaps. iii.—v.; and hence one might be tempted to regard the former as an earlier,

more concise, and summary account of the same event. But it is also conceivable that, after the failure of the first mission to Pharaoh, the same doubts and fears may have arisen again in the mind of Moses, which he had already expressed at Horeb, and hence it may have been necessary that the call should be renewed, with a repetition of the consolations and promises by which they had once before been allayed. But at any rate, even if the two sections must be regarded as different accounts of the same event, there is sufficient progress in the second section to justify the editor in placing the summary account, contained in chap. vi., after the more detailed narrative in chap. iii.—v. This progress consists in the change from the strong faith, evinced by the Israelites at the outset (iv. 31), to the incredulity, manifested by them immediately upon the failure of the first attempt (vi. 9).

(2), On the CAPITAL of the King of Egypt at that time, see § 1. 5, and § 41. 2.

THE SIGNS AND WONDERS IN EGYPT.

Vid. Lilienthal, gute Sache ix. p. 31 sqq.-S. Oedmann vermischte Sammlung aus der Naturkunde zur Erklärung der heiligen Schrift. Aus d. Schwed. v. Gröning, Rost. 1786 sqq.Rosenmüller, altes und neues Morgenland, vol. i. Hengstenberg, Egypt and the books of Moses, p. 95-125, Eng. transl.-L. de Laborde, comment. géogr. p. 22 sqq.—J. B. Friedreich, zur Bibel, Nürnberg 1848, i. 95 sqq.

§ 23 (Ex. vii. 1-7).—Pharaoh had contemptuously rejected the word of God, and therefore God spoke to him in deeds. The instrumentality of Moses was also employed in the deeds, as it had formerly been in the word. The fruitless negotiations were followed first by a declaration of war, and then by war itself. Moses, the shepherd and leader of Israel, was opposed to Pharaoh, the King of Egypt. But Moses was the messenger and repre

« PreviousContinue »