Exo 2:11-3:10 | KD | STEP | Flight of Moses from Egypt to Midian. - The education of Moses at the Egyptian court could not extinguish the feeling that he belonged to the people of Israel. Our history does not inform us how this feeling, which was inherited from his parents and nourished in him when an infant by his mother’s milk, was fostered still further after he had been handed over to Pharaoh’s daughter, and grew into a firm, decided consciousness of will. All that is related is, how this consciousness broke forth at length in the full-grown man, in the slaying of the Egyptian who had injured a Hebrew ( , ), and in the attempt to reconcile two Hebrew men who were quarrelling ( , ). Both of these occurred “in those days,” i.e., in the time of the Egyptian oppression, when Moses had become great (יגדּל as in ), i.e., had grown to be a man. According to tradition he was then forty years old ( ). What impelled him to this was not “a carnal ambition and longing for action,” or a desire to attract the attention of his brethren, but fiery love to his brethren or fellow-countrymen, as is shown in the expression, “One of his brethren” ( ), and deep sympathy with them in their oppression and sufferings; whilst, at the same time, they undoubtedly displayed the fire of his impetuous nature, and the ground-work for his future calling. It was from this point of view that Stephen cited these facts ( ), for the purpose of proving to the Jews of his own age, that they had been from time immemorial “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” ( ). And this view is the correct one. Not only did Moses intend to help his brethren when he thus appeared among them, but this forcible interference on behalf of his brethren could and should have aroused the thought in their minds, that God would send them salvation through him. “But they understood not” ( ). At the same time Moses thereby declared that he would no longer “be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt” ( ; see Delitzsch in loc .). And this had its roots in faith (πίστει). But his conduct presents another aspect also, which equally demands consideration. His zeal for the welfare of his brethren urged him forward to present himself as the umpire and judge of his brethren before God had called him to this, and drove him to the crime of murder, which cannot be excused as resulting from a sudden ebullition of wrath. For he acted with evident deliberation. “ He looked this way and that way; and when he saw no one, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand ” ( ). Through his life at the Egyptian court his own natural inclinations had been formed to rule, and they manifested themselves on this occasion in an ungodly way. This was thrown in his teeth by the man “in the wrong” (הרשׁע, ), who was striving with his brother and doing him an injury: “Who made thee a ruler and judge over us” ( )? and so far he was right. The murder of the Egyptian had also become known; and as soon as Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses, who fled into the land of Midian in fear for his life ( ). Thus dread of Pharaoh’s wrath drove Moses from Egypt into the desert. For all that, it is stated in , that “by faith (πίστει) Moses forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king.” This faith, however, he manifested not by fleeing - his flight was rather a sign of timidity - but by leaving Egypt; in other words, by renouncing his position in Egypt, where he might possibly have softened down the kings’ wrath, and perhaps even have brought help and deliverance to his brethren the Hebrews. By the fact that he did not allow such human hopes to lead him to remain in Egypt, and was not afraid to increase the king’s anger by his flight, he manifested faith in the invisible One as though he saw Him, commending not only himself, but his oppressed nation, to the care and protection of God (vid., Delitzsch on ). The situation of the land of Midian, to which Moses fled, cannot be determined with certainty. The Midianites, who were descended from Abraham through Keturah ( , ), had their principal settlements on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, from which they spread northwards into the fields of Moab ( ; Num 22:4, Num 22:7; Num 25:6, Num 25:17; Num 31:1.; Jdg 6:1.), and carried on a caravan trade through Canaan to Egypt ( , ; ). On the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, and five days’ journey from Aela, there stood the town of Madian , the ruins of which are mentioned by Edrisi and Abulfeda , who also speak of a well there, from which Moses watered the flocks of his father-in-law Shoeib (i.e., Jethro). But we are precluded from fixing upon this as the home of Jethro by , where Moses is said to have come to Horeb, when he drove Jethro’s sheep behind the desert. The Midianites on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf could not possibly have led their flocks as far as Horeb for pasturage. We must assume, therefore, that one branch of the Midianites, to whom Jethro was priest, had crossed the Elanitic Gulf, and settled in the southern half of the peninsula of Sinai (cf. ). There is nothing improbable in such a supposition. There are several branches of the Towara Arabs occupying the southern portion of Arabia, that have sprung from Hedjas in this way; and even in the most modern times considerable intercourse was carried on between the eastern side of the gulf and the peninsula, whilst there was formerly a ferry between Szytta , Madian , and Nekba . - The words “ and he sat down (ויּשׁב, i.e., settled) in the land of Midian, and sat down by the well, ” are hardly to be understood as simply meaning that “when he was dwelling in Midian, he sat down one day by a well” ( Baumg .), but that immediately upon his arrival in Midian, where he intended to dwell or stay, he sat down by the well. The definite article before בּאר points to the well as the only one, or the principal well in that district. Knobel refers to “the well at Sherm ;” but at Sherm el Moye (i.e., water-bay) or Sherm el Bir (well-bay) there are “several deep wells finished off with stones,” which are “evidently the work of an early age, and have cost great labour” ( Burckhardt , Syr. p. 854); so that the expression “ the well” would be quite unsuitable. Moreover there is but a very weak support for Knobel's attempt to determine the site of Midian, in the identification of the Μαρανῖται or Μαρανεῖς (of Strabo and Artemidorus ) with Madyan .

‏ Exodus 2:11-25

Flight of Moses from Egypt to Midian. - The education of Moses at the Egyptian court could not extinguish the feeling that he belonged to the people of Israel. Our history does not inform us how this feeling, which was inherited from his parents and nourished in him when an infant by his mother’s milk, was fostered still further after he had been handed over to Pharaoh’s daughter, and grew into a firm, decided consciousness of will. All that is related is, how this consciousness broke forth at length in the full-grown man, in the slaying of the Egyptian who had injured a Hebrew (Exo 2:11, Exo 2:12), and in the attempt to reconcile two Hebrew men who were quarrelling (Exo 2:13, Exo 2:14). Both of these occurred “in those days,” i.e., in the time of the Egyptian oppression, when Moses had become great (יגדּל as in Gen 21:20), i.e., had grown to be a man. According to tradition he was then forty years old (Act 7:23). What impelled him to this was not “a carnal ambition and longing for action,” or a desire to attract the attention of his brethren, but fiery love to his brethren or fellow-countrymen, as is shown in the expression, “One of his brethren” (Exo 2:11), and deep sympathy with them in their oppression and sufferings; whilst, at the same time, they undoubtedly displayed the fire of his impetuous nature, and the ground-work for his future calling. It was from this point of view that Stephen cited these facts (Act 7:25-26), for the purpose of proving to the Jews of his own age, that they had been from time immemorial “stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears” (Act 7:51). And this view is the correct one. Not only did Moses intend to help his brethren when he thus appeared among them, but this forcible interference on behalf of his brethren could and should have aroused the thought in their minds, that God would send them salvation through him. “But they understood not” (Act 7:25). At the same time Moses thereby declared that he would no longer “be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt” (Heb 11:24-26; see Delitzsch in loc.). And this had its roots in faith (πίστει). But his conduct presents another aspect also, which equally demands consideration. His zeal for the welfare of his brethren urged him forward to present himself as the umpire and judge of his brethren before God had called him to this, and drove him to the crime of murder, which cannot be excused as resulting from a sudden ebullition of wrath. ^{▼▼The judgment of Augustine is really the true one. Thus, in his c. Faustum Manich. l. 22, c. 70, he says, “I affirm, that the man, though criminal and really the offender, ought not to have been put to death by one who had no legal authority to do so. But minds that are capable of virtues often produce vices also, and show thereby for what virtue they would have been best adapted, if they had but been properly trained. For just as farmers, when they see large herbs, however useless, at once conclude that the land is good for growing corn, so that very impulse of the mind which led Moses to avenge his brother when suffering wrong from a native, without regard to legal forms, was not unfitted to produce the fruits of virtue, but, though hitherto uncultivated, was at least a sign of great fertility.” Augustine then compares this deed to that of Peter, when attempting to defend his Lord with a sword (Mat 26:51), and adds, “Both of them broke through the rules of justice, not through any base inhumanity, but through animosity that needed correction: both sinned through their hatred of another’s wickedness, and their love, though carnal, in the one case towards a brother, in the other to the Lord. This fault needed pruning or rooting up; but yet so great a heart could be as readily cultivated for bearing virtues, as land for bearing fruit.”}

For he acted with evident deliberation. “He looked this way and that way; and when he saw no one, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand” (Exo 2:12). Through his life at the Egyptian court his own natural inclinations had been formed to rule, and they manifested themselves on this occasion in an ungodly way. This was thrown in his teeth by the man “in the wrong” (הרשׁע, Exo 2:13), who was striving with his brother and doing him an injury: “Who made thee a ruler and judge over us” (Exo 2:14)? and so far he was right. The murder of the Egyptian had also become known; and as soon as Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses, who fled into the land of Midian in fear for his life (Exo 2:15). Thus dread of Pharaoh’s wrath drove Moses from Egypt into the desert. For all that, it is stated in Heb 11:27, that “by faith (πίστει) Moses forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king.” This faith, however, he manifested not by fleeing - his flight was rather a sign of timidity - but by leaving Egypt; in other words, by renouncing his position in Egypt, where he might possibly have softened down the kings’ wrath, and perhaps even have brought help and deliverance to his brethren the Hebrews. By the fact that he did not allow such human hopes to lead him to remain in Egypt, and was not afraid to increase the king’s anger by his flight, he manifested faith in the invisible One as though he saw Him, commending not only himself, but his oppressed nation, to the care and protection of God (vid., Delitzsch on Heb 11:27).

The situation of the land of Midian, to which Moses fled, cannot be determined with certainty. The Midianites, who were descended from Abraham through Keturah (Gen 25:2, Gen 25:4), had their principal settlements on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, from which they spread northwards into the fields of Moab (Gen 36:35; Num 22:4, Num 22:7; Num 25:6, Num 25:17; Num 31:1.; Jdg 6:1.), and carried on a caravan trade through Canaan to Egypt (Gen 37:28, Gen 37:36; Isa 60:6). On the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, and five days’ journey from Aela, there stood the town of Madian, the ruins of which are mentioned by Edrisi and Abulfeda, who also speak of a well there, from which Moses watered the flocks of his father-in-law Shoeib (i.e., Jethro). But we are precluded from fixing upon this as the home of Jethro by Exo 3:1, where Moses is said to have come to Horeb, when he drove Jethro’s sheep behind the desert. The Midianites on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf could not possibly have led their flocks as far as Horeb for pasturage. We must assume, therefore, that one branch of the Midianites, to whom Jethro was priest, had crossed the Elanitic Gulf, and settled in the southern half of the peninsula of Sinai (cf. Exo 3:1). There is nothing improbable in such a supposition. There are several branches of the Towara Arabs occupying the southern portion of Arabia, that have sprung from Hedjas in this way; and even in the most modern times considerable intercourse was carried on between the eastern side of the gulf and the peninsula, whilst there was formerly a ferry between Szytta, Madian, and Nekba. - The words “and he sat down (ויּשׁב, i.e., settled) in the land of Midian, and sat down by the well,” are hardly to be understood as simply meaning that “when he was dwelling in Midian, he sat down one day by a well” (Baumg.), but that immediately upon his arrival in Midian, where he intended to dwell or stay, he sat down by the well. The definite article before בּאר points to the well as the only one, or the principal well in that district. Knobel refers to “the well at Sherm;” but at Sherm el Moye (i.e., water-bay) or Sherm el Bir (well-bay) there are “several deep wells finished off with stones,” which are “evidently the work of an early age, and have cost great labour” (Burckhardt, Syr. p. 854); so that the expression “the well” would be quite unsuitable. Moreover there is but a very weak support for Knobel's attempt to determine the site of Midian, in the identification of the Μαρανῖται or Μαρανεῖς (of Strabo and Artemidorus) with Madyan. Exo 2:16-20

Here Moses secured for himself a hospitable reception from a priest of Midian, and a home at his house, by doing as Jacob had formerly done (Gen 29:10), viz., helping his daughters to water their father’s sheep, and protecting them against the other shepherds. - On the form יושׁען for יושׁען vid., Gen 19:19; and for the masculine suffixes to יגרשׁוּם and צאנם, Gen 31:9. תּדלנה for תּדלינה, as in Job 5:12, cf. Ewald, §198 a. - The flock of this priest consisted of nothing but צאן, i.e., sheep and goats (vid., Exo 3:1). Even now there are no oxen reared upon the peninsula of Sinai, as there is not sufficient pasturage or water to be found. For the same reason there are no horses kept there, but only camels and asses (cf. Seetzen, R. iii. 100; Wellsted, R. in Arab. ii. p. 66). In Exo 2:18 the priest is called Reguel, in Exo 3:1 Jethro. This title, “the priest of Midian,” shows that he was the spiritual head of the branch of the Midianites located there, but hardly that he was the prince or temporal head as well, like Melchizedek, as the Targumists have indicated by רבא, and as Artapanus and the poet Ezekiel distinctly affirm. The other shepherds would hardly have treated the daughters of the Emir in the manner described in Exo 2:17. The name רעוּאל (Reguel, friend of God) indicates that this priest served the old Semitic God El (אל). This Reguel, who gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses, was unquestionably the same person as Jethro (יתרו) the חתן of Moses and priest of Midian (Exo 3:1). Now, as Reguel's son Chobab is called Moses’ חתן in Num 10:29 (cf. Jdg 4:11), the Targumists and others supposed Reguel to be the grandfather of Zipporah, in which case אב would mean the grandfather in Exo 2:18, and בּת the granddaughter in Exo 2:21. This hypothesis would undoubtedly be admissible, if it were probable on other grounds. But as a comparison of Num 10:29 with Ex 18 does not necessarily prove that Chobab and Jethro were the same persons, whilst Exo 18:27 seems to lead to the very opposite conclusion, and התן, like the Greek γαμβρός, may be used for both father-in-law and brother-in-law, it would probably be more correct to regard Chobab as Moses’ brother-in-law, Reguel as the proper name of his father-in-law, and Jethro, for which Jether (praestantia) is substituted in Exo 4:18, as either a title, or the surname which showed the rank of Reguel in his tribe, like the Arabic Imam, i.e., praepositus, spec. sacrorum antistes. Ranke's opinion, that Jethro and Chobab were both of them sons of Reguel and brothers-in-law of Moses, is obviously untenable, if only on the ground that according to the analogy of Num 10:29 the epithet “son of Reguel” would not be omitted in Exo 3:1. Exo 2:21-22

Moses’ Life in Midian. - As Reguel gave a hospitable welcome to Moses, in consequence of his daughters’ report of the assistance that he had given them in watering their sheep; it pleased Moses (ויּואל) to dwell with him. The primary meaning of הואיל is voluit (vid., Ges. thes.). קראן for קראנה: like שׁמען in Gen 4:23. - Although Moses received Reguel’s daughter Zipporah as his wife, probably after a lengthened stay, his life in Midian was still a banishment and a school of bitter humiliation. He gave expression to this feeling at the birth of his first son in the name which he gave it, viz., Gershom (גּרשׁם, i.e., banishment, from גּרשׁ to drive or thrust away); “for,” he said, interpreting the name according to the sound, “I have been a stranger (גּר) in a strange land.” In a strange land he was obliged to live, far away from his brethren in Egypt, and far from his fathers’ land of promise; and in this strange land the longing for home seems to have been still further increased by his wife Zipporah, who, to judge from Exo 4:24., neither understood nor cared for the feelings of his heart. By this he was urged on to perfect and unconditional submission to the will of his God. To this feeling of submission and confidence he gave expression at the birth of his second son, by calling him Eliezer (אליעזר God is help); for he said, “The God of my father (Abraham or the three patriarchs, cf. Exo 3:6) is my help, and has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh” (Exo 18:4). The birth of this son is not mentioned in the Hebrew text, but his name is given in Exo 18:4, with this explanation. ^{▼▼In the Vulgate the account of his birth and name is interpolated here, and so also in some of the later codices of the lxx. But in the oldest and best of the Greek codices it is wanting here, so that there is no ground for the supposition that it has fallen out of the Hebrew text.}

In the names of his two sons, Moses expressed all that had affected his mind in the land of Midian. The pride and self-will with which he had offered himself in Egypt as the deliverer and judge of his oppressed brethren, had been broken down by the feeling of exile. This feeling, however, had not passed into despair, but had been purified and raised into firm confidence in the God of his fathers, who had shown himself as his helper by delivering him from the sword of Pharaoh. In this state of mind, not only did “his attachment to his people, and his longing to rejoin them, instead of cooling, grow stronger and stronger” (Kurtz), but the hope of the fulfilment of the promise given to the fathers was revived within him, and ripened into the firm confidence of faith.

Exo 2:23-25 form the introduction to the next chapter. The cruel oppression of the Israelites in Egypt continued without intermission or amelioration. “In those many days the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the service” (i.e., their hard slave labour). The “many days” are the years of oppression, or the time between the birth of Moses and the birth of his children in Midian. The king of Egypt who died, was in any case the king mentioned in Exo 2:15; but whether he was one and the same with the “new king” (Exo 1:8), or a successor of his, cannot be decided. If the former were the case, we should have to assume, with Baumgarten, that the death of the king took place not very long after Moses’ flight, seeing that he was an old man at the time of Moses’ birth, and had a grown-up daughter. But the greater part of the “many days” would then fall in his successor’s reign, which is obviously opposed to the meaning of the words, “It came to pass in those many days, that the king of Egypt died.” For this reason the other supposition, that the king mentioned here is a successor of the one mentioned in Exo 1:8, has far greater probability. At the same time, all that can be determined from a comparison of Exo 7:7 is, that the Egyptian oppression lasted more than 80 years. This allusion to the complaints of the Israelites, in connection with the notice of the king’s death, seems to imply that they hoped for some amelioration of their lot from the change of government; and that when they were disappointed, and groaned the more bitterly in consequence, they cried to God for help and deliverance. This is evident from the remark, “Their cry came up unto God,” and is stated distinctly in Deu 26:7. “God heard their crying, and remembered His covenant with the fathers: “and God saw the children of Israel, and God noticed them.” “This seeing and noticing had regard to the innermost nature of Israel, namely, as the chosen seed of Abraham” (Baumgarten). God’s notice has all the energy of love and pity. Lyra has aptly explained ויּדע thus: “ad modum cognoscentis se habuit, ostendendo dilectionem circa eos;” and Luther has paraphrased it correctly: “He accepted them.” The Altar of Incense and Incense-Offering bring the directions concerning the sanctuary to a close. What follows, from Ex 30:11-31:17, is shown to be merely supplementary to the larger whole by the formula “and Jehovah spake unto Moses,” with which every separate command is introduced (cf. Exo 30:11, Exo 30:17, Exo 30:22, Exo 30:24, Exo 31:1, Exo 31:12).

‏ Exodus 3:1-10

Exo 3:1

When Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, he drove them on one occasion behind the desert, and came to the mountains of Horeb. רעה היה, lit. “he was feeding:” the participle expresses the continuance of the occupation. המּדבּר אחר does not mean ad interiora deserti (Jerome); but Moses drove the sheep from Jethro’s home as far as Horeb, so that he passed through a desert with the flock before he reached the pasture land of Horeb. For “in this, the most elevated ground of the peninsula, you find the most fertile valleys, in which even fruit-trees grow. Water abounds in this district; consequently it is the resort of all the Bedouins when the lower countries are dried up” (Rosenmüller). Jethro’s home was separated from Horeb, therefore, by a desert, and is to be sought to the south-east, and not to the north-east. For it is only a south-easterly situation that will explain these two facts: First, that when Moses returned from Midian to Egypt, he touched again at Horeb, where Aaron, who had come from Egypt, met him (Exo 4:27); and, secondly, that the Israelites never came upon any Midianites on their journey through the desert, whilst the road of Hobab the Midianite separated from theirs as soon as they departed from Sinai (Num 10:30). ^{▼▼The hypothesis, that, after the calling of Moses, this branch of the Midianites left the district they had hitherto occupied, and sought out fresh pasture ground, probably on the eastern side of the Elanitic Gulf, is as needless as it is without support.}Horeb is called the Mount of God by anticipation, with reference to the consecration which it subsequently received through the revelation of God upon its summit. The supposition that it had been a holy locality even before the calling of Moses, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the name is not restricted to one single mountain, but applies to the central group of mountains in the southern part of the peninsula (vid., Exo 19:1). Hence the spot where God appeared to Moses cannot be precisely determined, although tradition has very suitably given the name Wady Shoeib, i.e., Jethro’s Valley, to the valley which bounds the Jebel Musa towards the east, and separates it from the Jebel ed Deir, because it is there that Moses is supposed to have fed the flock of Jethro. The monastery of Sinai, which is in this valley, is said to have been built upon the spot where the thorn-bush stood, according to the tradition in Antonini Placent. Itinerar. c. 37, and the annals of Eutychius (vid., Robinson, Palestine). Exo 3:2-5

Here, at Horeb, God appeared to Moses as the Angel of the Lord “in a flame of fire out of the midst of the thorn-bush” (סנה, βάτος, rubus), which burned in the fire and was not consumed. אכּל, in combination with איננּוּ, must be a participle for מאכּל. When Moses turned aside from the road or spot where he was standing, “to look at this great sight” (מראה), i.e., the miraculous vision of the bush that was burning and yet not burned up, Jehovah called to him out of the midst of the thorn-bush, “Moses, Moses (the reduplication as in Gen 22:11), draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (אדמה). The symbolical meaning of this miraculous vision, - that is to say, the fact that it was a figurative representation of the nature and contents of the ensuing message from God, - has long been admitted. The thorn-bush in contrast with the more noble and lofty trees (Jdg 9:15) represented the people of Israel in their humiliation, as a people despised by the world. Fire and the flame of fire were not “symbols of the holiness of God;” for, as the Holy One, “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1Jo 1:5), He “dwells in the light which no man can approach unto” (1Ti 6:16); and that not merely according to the New Testament, but according to the Old Testament view as well, as is evident from Isa 10:17, where “the Light of Israel” and “the Holy One of Israel” are synonymous. But “the Light of Israel became fire, and the Holy One a flame, and burned and consumed its thorns and thistles.” Nor is “fire, from its very nature, the source of light,” according to the scriptural view. On the contrary, light, the condition of all life, is also the source of fire. The sun enlightens, warms, and burns (Job 30:28; Sol. Sol 1:6); the rays of the sun produce warmth, heat, and fire; and light was created before the sun. Fire, therefore, regarded as burning and consuming, is a figurative representation of refining affliction and destroying punishment (1Co 3:11.), or a symbol of the chastening and punitive justice of the indignation and wrath of God. It is in fire that the Lord comes to judgment (Dan 7:9-10; Eze 1:13-14, Eze 1:27-28; Rev 1:14-15). Fire sets forth the fiery indignation which devours the adversaries (Heb 10:27). He who “judges and makes war in righteousness’ has eyes as a flame of fire (Rev 19:11-12). Accordingly, the burning thorn-bush represented the people of Israel as they were burning in the fire of affliction, the iron furnace of Egypt (Deu 4:20). Yet, though the thorn-bush was burning in the fire, it was not consumed; for in the flame was Jehovah, who chastens His people, but does not give them over unto death (Psa 118:18). The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had come down to deliver His people out of the hand of the Egyptians (Exo 3:8). Although the affliction of Israel in Egypt proceeded from Pharaoh, yet was it also a fire which the Lord had kindled to purify His people and prepare it for its calling. In the flame of the burning bush the Lord manifested Himself as the “jealous God, who visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate Him, and showeth mercy unto thousands of them that love Him and keep His commandments” (Exo 20:5; Deu 5:9-10), who cannot tolerate the worship of another god (Exo 34:14), and whose anger burns against idolaters, to destroy them (Deu 6:15). The “jealous God” was a “consuming fire” in the midst of Israel (Deu 4:24). These passages show that the great sight which Moses saw not only had reference to the circumstances of Israel in Egypt, but was a prelude to the manifestation of God on Sinai for the establishment of the covenant (Exo 19 and 20), and also a representation of the relation in which Jehovah would stand to Israel through the establishment of the covenant made with the fathers. For this reason it occurred upon the spot where Jehovah intended to set up His covenant with Israel. But, as a jealous God, He also “takes vengeance upon His adversaries” (Nah 1:2.). Pharaoh, who would not let Israel go, He was about to smite with all His wonders (Exo 3:20), whilst He redeemed Israel with outstretched arm and great judgments (Exo 6:6). - The transition from the Angel of Jehovah (Exo 3:2) to Jehovah (Exo 3:4) proves the identity of the two; and the interchange of Jehovah and Elohim, in Exo 3:4, precludes the idea of Jehovah being merely a national God. The command of God to Moses to put off his shoes, may be accounted for from the custom in the East of wearing shoes or sandals merely as a protection from dirt. No Brahmin enters a pagoda, no Moslem a mosque, without first taking off at least his overshoes (Rosenm. Morgenl. i. 261; Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 373); and even in the Grecian temples the priests and priestesses performed the service barefooted (Justin, Apol. i. c. 62; Bähr, Symbol. ii. 96). when entering other holy places also, the Arabs and Samaritans, and even the Yezidis of Mesopotamia, take off their shoes, that the places may not be defiled by the dirt or dust upon them (vid., Robinson, Pal. iii. 100, and Layard's Nineveh and its Remains). The place of the burning bush was holy because of the presence of the holy God, and putting off the shoes was intended to express not merely respect for the place itself, but that reverence which the inward man (Eph 3:16) owes to the holy God. Exo 3:6

Jehovah then made Himself known to Moses as the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, reminding him through that name of the promises made to the patriarchs, which He was about to fulfil to their seed, the children of Israel. In the expression, “thy father,” the three patriarchs are classed together as one, just as in Exo 18:4 (“my father”), “because each of them stood out singly in distinction from the nation, as having received the promise of seed directly from God” (Baumgarten). “And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.” The sight of the holy God no sinful man can bear (cf. 1Ki 19:12). Exo 3:7-10

Jehovah had seen the affliction of His people, had heard their cry under their taskmasters, and had come down (ירד, vid., Gen 11:5) to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up to a good and broad land, to the place of the Canaanites; and He was about to send Moses to Pharaoh to bring them forth. The land to which the Israelites were to be taken up is called a “good” land, on account of its great fertility (Deu 8:7.), and a “broad” land, in contrast with the confinement and oppression of the Israelites in Egypt. The epithet “good” is then explained by the expression, “a land flowing with milk and honey” (זבת, a participle of זוּב in the construct state; vid., Ges. §135); a proverbial description of the extraordinary fertility and loveliness of the land of Canaan (cf. Exo 3:17; Exo 13:5; Exo 16:14, etc.). Milk and honey are the simplest and choicest productions of a land abounding in grass and flowers, and were found in Palestine in great abundance even when it was in a desolate condition (Isa 7:15, Isa 7:22; see my Comm. on Jos 5:6). The epithet broad is explained by an enumeration of the six tribes inhabiting the country at that time (cf. Gen 10:15. and Gen 15:20, Gen 15:21).