had hitherto been insufficient, and hence the necessity for the expiatory sacrifice to cover the defects. The necessary complement of reconciliation is sanctification. By virtue of the atoning Paschal blood the first-born of Israel had been spared; but if they were to continue to be thus spared, the sanctification of the first-born must follow. And as the first-born of Egypt represented the entire nation, and in their fate the whole people were subjected to a compulsory dedication; so was the voluntary dedication of the whole nation of Israel set forth in the sanctification of the Israelitish first-born. It is true that the sparing of the first-born, like the redemption from Egypt, did not occur more than once in history; but future generations reaped the benefit of both events; and therefore in the particular generation which was spared and delivered, every succeeding generation was spared and redeemed at the same time (and it was for the purpose of keeping this in mind that the annual commemoration of the passover was enjoined). Hence it was not sufficient that the first-born of that first generation should be consecrated to the Lord, in order that the protection and deliverance afforded should be subjectively completed; but it was required that the first-born of every succeeding generation should be also sanctified to the Lord, as having been also spared and redeemed. Therefore the command was issued, that this first sanctification of the first-born should be repeated in the case of all the firstborn in every age.

The words "for they are mine," (chap. xiii. 2) show, in the most general terms, in what the consecration of the first-born consisted. The first-born was the Lord's; it was not sui juris, but the property of Jehovah, Jehovah's mancipium. Knowing then, as we do, from the next stages in the development of their history, that Jehovah had determined to fix his abode in the midst of the Israelites, and that his dwelling-place was to be the sanctuary of Israel, the tabernacle of assembly, where they were to meet with their God and serve him; we naturally expect that the consecration of the first-born, that is, their dedication to Jehovah, should take place either in or at this sanctuary, and this expectation was fully realized in the subsequent course of their history (vid. Vol. iii. § 20. 3). But the sanctuary was not yet erected; therefore, the sanctification required here cannot have been anything more than a provisional separation for that

purpose, not the actual realization of it. But Israel was already to be made to understand, that after that solemn night of protection and deliverance, the first-born of its families and the first-born of its cattle were no longer its own, but belonged to God. It was no longer at liberty to dispose of them according to its own pleasure; but must wait submissively, till God in his own time should determine what they were to do. So much, however, was already made known (chap. xiii. 13), that only clean animals, i.e., such as were fit for sacrifice, were to be actually and irredeemably set apart as sacrifices to the Lord; whilst all the rest of the cattle were either to be slain, or redeemed by a clean beast, and the first-born children were also to be redeemed. But it was not declared till a later period, how this was to be done (Num. iii. 8 ; viii. 17; xviii. 14-18). At the same time, they were already made perfectly conscious of the meaning of the whole transaction (vers. 14, 15): "When thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, what is this? thou shalt say unto him: By strength of hand Jehovah brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the first-born of Egypt, therefore I sacrifice to Jehovah all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the first-born of my children I redeem."

or

An expression occurs in Ex. xiii. 16, with reference to the sanctification of the first-born, which is similar to that which has already been used in ver. 9 respecting the yearly celebration of the passover: "It shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for a memorial-band (; ver. 16, for a frontlet, i) between thine eyes. The pharisaic custom of later times was founded upon these passages; just as the practice of wearing puλakтýpia (Matt. xxiii. 5), i.e., strips of parchment with passages of Scripture written upon them, which were tied to the forehead and the hand at the time of prayer, was based upon Deut. vi. 8 and xi. 18; whilst others interpret the passages as symbolical only. That the latter is the only admissible explanation of the two passages in the Book of Exodus, must be apparent to every one; but whether the same may be said of the passages in Deuteronomy, is a question that we must reserve for a later occasion. (6). According to Ex. xiii. 18 the children of Israel departed

VOL. II.

Y

חֲמִשִׁים from Egypt

The Septuagint rendering is TéμTTY δὲ γενέᾳ ἀνέβησαν. Clericus explains it in the same manner, with special reference to Gen. xv. 16, and Ex. vi. 16 sqq. (Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses). Fuller adheres firmly to the derivation of the word from five (Miscell. ss. 5. 2). He renders it by TeμTтádes, and supposes it to mean that they were drawn up in five columns. But neither of these renderings corresponds to the sense, in which the word is used in other places (Josh. i. 14; vi. 12; Judg. vii. 11). In Num. xxii. 30, 32, and Deut. iii. 18, the men who are called on in Josh. i. 14, and vi. 12, are described as Db(accincti, expediti ad iter s. ad proelium). The Vulgate translates it armati; Aquila, évwπλioμévoi; Symmachus, κadwπXioμévoi. A more suitable rendering of the passages cited would be equipped for battle, in battle array," which certainly includes the notion of being armed. The etymology is doubtful. Gesenius refers to the cognate roots egit, oppressit, and to the Arabic

חמץ

=

חמס,acer fuit

=

violenter

UMA = acer, strenuus fuit in proelio. It has been objected to our explanation, that the Israelites went away unarmed. But this is nowhere stated; and the panic, which seized them afterwards (chap. xiv. 10 sqq.), does not prove that they were not armed. On the other hand, we read shortly afterwards of their fighting a regular battle at Rephidim with the Amalekites (xvii. 10 sqq.). There could have been no reason whatever for dividing the people into five companies. The Septuagint rendering has still less to commend it; were it only because there is no ground for the assumption, that Moses was the fifth in order of descent from Jacob (vol. i. § 6. 1). But the rendering "equipped for battle" or in battle array" furnishes a good, appropriate, and very significant meaning. This was a necessary part of the triumphant and jubilant attitude, in which Israel was to depart from Egypt.

אסף

ערב

(from

to collect).

(7). The Egyptians, who attached themselves to the Israelites on their departure, are called (from y to mix) in chap. xii. 38, and in Num. xi. 4 Luther renders both words Pöbelvolk (a mob); the Septuagint, EπíμIKTOS; the Vulgate, vulgus promiscuum. The Hebrew expressions describe them as a people that had flocked together

(the formation and meaning of the words correspond to the German Mischmasch), and lead to the conclusion that they formed the lowest stratum of Egyptian society, like the Pariahs in India, and did not belong to any of the recognised castes (cf. § 45. 4). Even among the Israelites they occupied a very subordinate position; for there can be no doubt that they were the hewers of wood and drawers of water mentioned in Deut. xxix. 10, 11. At the same time we perceive from this passage, that in spite of their subordinate position, and their performance of the lowest kinds of service, they were regarded as an integral part of the Israelitish community.

PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA, AND DESTRUCTION OF PHARAOH.

§ 36. (Ex. xiii. 17-xv. 21; Num. xxxiii. 3—8).—The nearest route to Canaan, the ultimate destination of the children of Israel (chap. iii. 17), would have been in a north-easterly direction, along the coast of the Mediterranean; and by this route their pilgrimage would not have lasted more than a very few days. But Jehovah had his own good reasons (1) for not leading them straight to Canaan, but causing them to take a circuitous route across the desert of Sinai (2). The regular road from Egypt to Sinai goes round the northern point of the Heroopolitan Gulf (the Red Sea), and then follows a south-easterly direction along its eastern shore. In this direction the Israelitish procession started, under the guidance of Moses. The point from which they set out was Raemses, the chief city of the land of Goshen. The main body, which started from this city, was no doubt joined on the road by detachments from the more distant provinces. Their first place of encampment was Succoth, the second Etham, "at the end of the desert." But instead of going completely round the northern extremity of the Red Sea, so as to get as quickly as possible beyond the borders of the Egyptian territory, and out of the reach of Egyptian weapons; as soon as they reached this point, they received orders from Jehovah to

turn round and continue their march upon the western side of the sea. Thus they still remained on Egyptian soil, and took a route, which apparently exposed them to inevitable destruction, if Pharaoh should make up his mind to pursue them. For they were completely shut in by the sea on the one hand, and by high mountains and narrow defiles on the other, without any method of escape which human sagacity could possibly discover. In such a position no prudence, or skill, or power, that any human leader, even though he were a Moses, might possess, could be of the least avail. But it was the will of God; and God never demands more than he gives. When He required that Israel should take this route, He had also provided the means of escape. In his own person he undertook the direction of their march, and that in an outward and visible form, and by a phenomenon of so magnificent a character, that every individual in the immense procession could see it, and that all might be convinced that they were under the guidance of God. Jehovah went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud, that he might lead them by the right way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to enlighten the darkness of the night. This pillar of cloud never left the people during the day, nor the pillar of fire during the night (3). Tidings were quickly brought to Pharaoh from Etham of the unexpected, and, as it seemed, inconceivably infatuated change which the Israelites had made in their course. And Pharaoh said, "they have lost their way in the land; the desert has shut them in." The old pride of Egypt, which the last plague had broken down, lifted up its head once more. "Why have we done this, they said, to let Israel go from serving us ?" Pharaoh collected an army with the greatest possible speed, and pursued the Israelites, overtaking them when they were encamped within sight of the sea, between Pihahiroth, Migdol, and Baalzephon. Shut in between mountains, the sea, and Pharaoh's cavalry, and neither prepared nor able to fight; enveloped, moreover, in the