Exodus
8
THE
SECOND PLAGUE -
FROGS
vs. 1-15 – “And the LORD spake
unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh” - The
second
plague is given simply as a plague, not as a
sign. It is first threatened (v. 2), and then
accomplished (v. 6), an interval being allowed, that
Pharaoh might change his mind,
and escape the plague, if he chose. “and say
unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let
my people go, that they may serve me. And if thou refuse to let them go, behold,
I will smite all thy borders with frogs: And the river shall bring forth frogs
abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy
bedchamber, and upon thy bed” - The extreme cleanliness of the Egyptians
(Herod.
2:37) rendered this visitation peculiarly disagreeable to them. “and into the
house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into
thine ovens, and into thy
kneading troughs:
And the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy
people, and upon all thy servants. And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto
Aaron, Stretch forth thine
hand with thy rod over the streams, over the rivers,
and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the
Aaron stretched out his hand over the
waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up,
and covered the
and brought up frogs upon the
means of estimating, the second plague followed
the first. Again, while the main
purpose of the plague was to punish the nation by
which
oppressed, the secondary object of throwing contempt
upon their, religion was maintained.
Frogs
were among the Egyptian sacred animals. One of their deities, Heka, was a frog-
headed goddess; and they seem to have regarded the frog as a sacred emblem of creative
power.
The great multiplication of frogs, whereby they became an annoyance and
a curse,
was a trial and strain to the entire Egyptian
religious system. The Egyptians might not kill
them; yet they destroyed all their comfort, all
their happiness. Their animal-worship was
thus proved absurd and ridiculous. They
were obliged to respect the creatures which they
hated — to preserve the animals they would fain
have swept from the face of the earth. It
is perhaps somewhat difficult for modern
Europeans to imagine the plague that
frogs might
be. The peculiar kind, which has the
scientific name of Rana
Mosaica, resembles our toad,
and is a disgusting object, which crawls
rather than leaps, and croaks perpetually. (I can
remember as a child, as spring began to approach,
the shrill noises of frogs from a
swamp
nearby where I lived – CY – 2010) - To have the
whole country filled with these disgusting
reptiles, to be unable to walk in the streets
without treading on them, to find them not only
occupying one’s doorstep but in possession of one’s
house, in one’s bed-chamber, and
upon one’s bed, to hear their dismal croak
perpetually, to see nothing but their loathsome
forms whithersoever one looked, to
be in perpetual contact with them and feel the repulsion
of their cold, rough, clammy skin, would be
perhaps as severe a punishment as can
well be conceived. Nations are known to have
deserted their homes, and fled to a
foreign land to escape from it. “In Paeonia and Dardania,”says Phoenias, a disciple of
Aristotle,
“there appeared once suddenly such a number of frogs, that they filled the
houses and the streets. Therefore — as killing
them, or shutting the doors, was of no avail;
as even the vessels were full of them, the
water infected, and all food uneatable;
as they could scarcely set their foot upon
the ground without treading on heaps of them,
and as they were vexed by the smell of the
great numbers which died — they fled from
that region altogether”(Eustath.
ad Horn. Il. 1 p. 35). In
out of the waters in the month of September,
when the inundation is beginning to
subside. Even now they sometimes amount to a
severe visitation. How long the plague
of frogs endured, we are not told. Probably every effort was made, short of
intentionally killing them, to get rid of them. Snakes,
and chameleons, and ibises
would destroy many — others would be crushed
beneath wheels, trampled on by
animals, squeezed to death by the opening of
doors, unintentionally killed by men.
But
the vacancies made were constantly filled; and there seemed no prospect of the
infliction passing away. The influence of his
counselors would under these
circumstances be brought to bear upon the mind of the
Pharaoh — he would be
warned that his subjects were attributing their
sufferings to his obstinacy — he would
be recommended — perhaps pressed — to yield,
and would find in the annoyance
which he individually endured a strong motive
for compliance. Accordingly, he after
a while sent for the two Israelite chiefs,
and made the request recorded in the text.
“Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron,
and said, Intreat the LORD” - An
acknowledgment of Jehovah’s power is now for the first time
forced from the reluctant
king, who has hitherto boasted that “he knew not Jehovah” (ch. 5:2) - “that He may
take away the frogs from me, and from my people;
and I will let the people go,
that they may do sacrifice unto the LORD. And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory
over me: Probably a phrase of
ordinary courtesy, meaning — “I submit to thy will
have the honour of my submission.”
“when
shall I entreat for thee, and for thy
servants, and for thy people, to destroy the frogs
from thee and thy houses, that
they may remain in the river only? And he said, To
morrow. And he said, Be it
according to thy word: that
thou mayest know that there is none like unto the
LORD our God”.
Moses accepts the date fixed by the Pharaoh, and makes an
appeal
to him to recognize the unapproachable
power and glory
of Jehovah, if the event
corresponds with the time agreed upon. “And
the frogs shall depart from thee, and
from thy houses, and from
thy servants, and from thy people; they shall remain
in the
river only. And Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh:
and Moses
cried unto
the LORD” - The expression used is a strong one, and seems to imply
special earnestness in the prayer. Moses had ventured
to fix a definite time for the
removal of the plague, without (so far as appears) any
special command of God.
Hence
earnest prayer was doubly necessary. (Compare I Kings
18:36-37.) – “because
of the frogs which He had brought against Pharaoh. And the LORD did
according to the word of Moses; and the frogs died
out of the houses, out of
the villages, and out of the fields. And they gathered them together upon heaps:
and the land stank”. Even when the relief came, it was not
entire relief. The putrefaction
of the dead bodies filled the whole land with
a fetid odor. “But when Pharaoh saw
that there was respite” - Literally,
“a taking of breath,” i.e., “a
breathing-space.”
he hardened his heart,
and hearkened not unto them” - past, and not expecting
any fresh visitation. As Isaiah 26:10 says — “Let favour be shewed to the wicked,
yet will he not learn righteousness”. Bad men “despise the riches of God’s
goodness and forbearance, and long-suffering, not
knowing that the goodness of
God leadeth them to
repentance.” In this way, they “treasure
up to themselves
wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God”
(Romans 2:4-5), either in this world or in the world to come. “As the Lord had said”.
(See chps. 3:19;
4:21; 7:4)
STRAW (vs. 1-7) A frog seems an innocent and harmless
reptile enough, not
pleasing nor attractive, but scarcely calculated to
cause much suffering. When
the Egyptians made frogs sacred, they had no
notion of one day finding them
an
intolerable annoyance. But God can make, of the least of His creatures, a
weapon to
wound, a whip to scourge men. Minute microscopic fungi and
entozoa destroy crops and wither up the human frame.
Huge ships are
utterly
ruined by the working of the Teredo
navalis. White ants bring down
houses. And
so, on this occasion, poor weak frogs made the lives of the
Egyptians a burden
to them. Forced to tread on them as they walked, to
feel them
crawling upon their naked feet, to see them covering the floors of
their
chambers and the soft cushions of their beds, finding them in their
ovens,
their kneading-troughs, the culinary and other vessels, scarcely able
to keep
them out of their food, always hearing their melancholy croak, the
unfortunate
wretches had not a moment’s comfort or peace. Constant
dropping
wears out a stone. A trivial annoyance becomes intolerable by
repetition
and persistence. Thus, even the obdurate Pharaoh, who had
borne the
first plague till God chose to remove it without a symptom of
yielding,
is cowed by the second plague, and “calls
for Moses and
Aaron” – (v. 8).
The object of the judgments, as well
as of the goodness of God is “to lead
men to repentance” - (Romans 2:4). He “wouldeth not the
death of a
sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live”(Ezekiel
33:11).
His cry is ever, “Why will ye die, O house of
judgments
have their proper effect on men, partially at any rate. Ahab
repented to
some extent when woe was denounced upon his house by
Elijah — he “rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted,
and lay in sackcloth, and went softly”(I Kings
21:27). The Ninevites
“repented at the preaching of Jonah”— the king “proclaimed a fast,” and
“rose from his throne, and put his robe from him, and covered him with
sackcloth, and lay in ashes”— the
people moreover, “put on sackcloth
from the greatest to the least of them”(Jonah
3:5-7). And so Pharaoh
seems to
have repented, in a certain sense, at this time. He abated his pride,
and came
down from the high position which he had assumed, sent for
God’s ministers, begged their
prayers, and promised compliance with the
Divine commands.
Probably he was not conscious to himself of insincerity.
His spirit was humbled — he was
convinced of the power of Jehovah — he
believed in
the Divine mission of Moses and Aaron — he promised,
intending
to perform; and God, though knowing well how short-lived his
repentance
would be, suffered Himself to be intreated, took away
His heavy
hand, and
gave to Pharaoh, as He gave to Ahab and to the Ninevites,
“a
breathing space.” We see by this, that such is the mercy of God, such His
love for
sinners who are not yet wholly hardened, that He looks with
favor on
the slighest relenting, the least indication of a
desire to turn away
from sin,
forsake it, and turn to righteousness. And this divine pattern must
be followed
by His ministers. They must not assume that any professed
repentance
is insincere. They may have their own private belief, as Moses
doubtless
had; but it is their business to welcome the first show of
penitence;
to come when the sinner asks their aid, to give him the benefit of
their
prayers, to seek to obtain for him a remission or alleviation of God’s
judgments.
And further, they will do well to imitate the humility and
courtesy of
Moses. “A proud look and high stomach” on their part are
unsuitable
when the sinner abases himself. It is their duty, and their highest
wisdom, to
be “all things to all men”— (I
Corinthians 9:22) to meet
repentance
half-way — to assist it, forward it, encourage it. No doubt,
repentance
under the pressure of judgment — such, e.g., as sickness — is in
itself
suspicious and doubtful; but the wise minister will keep his doubts to
himself,
and bend his whole mind to the fixing, furthering, and deepening of
the
repentance, so that (if passible) it may issue in a
real conversion of the soul
to God.
An Egyptian king was not likely,
unless exceptionally gifted by nature, to
be firm,
fixed, and stable in his conduct. Flattered and indulged from
infancy, no
sooner did he obtain the crown, than he found himself
recognised as a divinity by the great mass of his
subjects, and regarded as
one who
“could do no wrong.” Occasionally, he may have been so
fortunate
as to fall under the influence of a wise counselor, but in general
he would
have been surrounded by advisers only anxious to please by
echoing to
him his own wishes and ideas. This Pharaoh — whether he was
Menephthah,
or any one else — was evidently a weak, impulsive, double-
minded monarch.
He wavered between good and bad impulses, now
inclining
one way, now another. He was sure therefore to be unstable in his
ways. (James
1:8) - Similar, though (it may be) less pronounced, instability
attaches to
all those whose souls are not anchored upon the firm and
unchangeable
basis of fixed principles. (Hebrews 6:19) - It is fatal to the
consistency
of a career that a man should be double-minded. No man can
serve God
and Mammon. (Luke 16:13) - There is no fellowship between light
and
darkness, or between Christ and Belial. (II Corinthians 6:14-15) - A man
should make
his choice, and not “halt between two
opinions. If Jehovah be
God,
follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him” - (I Kings
18:21) - Shifting,
unstable,
uncertain, variable souls earn universal contempt, and are powerless
to effect
anything but their own ruin.
.
THE
THIRD PLAGUE - LICE
vs. 16-19 – “And the LORD said unto Moses,
Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy
rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it
may become lice throughout all the
and smote the dust of the earth, and it became
lice in man, and in beast; all the
dust of the land became lice throughout all the
word is only found here and in the Psalm105:31. It
was understood as “lice”by
Josephus, the Talmudical writers, Bochart,
Pool, and our translators in the reign
of James I. But the great weight of authority is in favor of
the rendering “gnats” or
“mosquitoes.” It must also be borne in mind that the
nearest Egyptian equivalent,
khennems, has
the signification of mosquito (Speaker’s Commentary, vol. 1.
p. 490).
[Smith’s A Dictionary of the Bible says that
there is not
sufficient authority to change
the translation of “lice” – Sir Samuel Baker, in his travels, described the vermin in
very similar terms: “it is as though the very dust were turned into lice” - The lice
which he describes are a sort of tick, not larger than a grain of sand, which when
filled with blood expand to the size of a hazel
nut. – Canon Cook] - {
says – the word lice could mean gnats or mosquitoes. Its root means to “cover” or
“nip” or “pinch”. It
is interesting that the nipping, pinching, or covering could not be
fulfilled by a gnat or a mosquito. It is,
however, a good description of lice. A
leading
zoologist has said that
mites form an enormous order whose leading function, to a large
extent, is to play
the scavenger. You can well imagine with
the land stinking with
frogs that there
were crowds of lice. The lice could
eventually rid the land of the frogs
and could therefore become a blessing as well as a curse. Regardless of the apparent
help the lice might have been, one man tells about
his experience with them in
“I noticed
that the sand appeared to be in motion.
Close inspection revealed that the
surface of the ground was a moving mass of minute
ticks, thousands of which were
crawling up my legs…I beat a hasty retreat, pondering
the words of the Scriptures,
‘the dust of the land became lice throughout all the
plague of lice could not be duplicated by the
Egyptian magicians. God is beginning
to level His judgment against life itself in the
did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not” - events
had convinced them that they could not cope
with Moses and Aaron; and it would
seem that they therefore declined further
contest – “so there were lice upon man,
and upon beast. Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:
and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he
hearkened not unto them; as the
LORD had said.” - (Reader,
the Bible says that in the last days, God will work
as He did in the days of coming out of
CY – 2010)
MOTION
– (v. 19) - The
magicians had begun by exciting Pharaoh to obstinate
unbelief and resistance
to the Divine Will. They had, by
artifice or otherwise,
persuaded him
that there was nothing so very marvelous in the wonders
wrought by Moses
and Aaron, nothing that indicated a Divine author of the
wonders. They had thus encouraged and stimulated him
to embark upon a fatal
course.
Now, they would fain have stopped him, but they could not. His
pride and
self-conceit — his honor, as no doubt he thought it, were
concerned
in the struggle upon which he had entered — to give way would
be to
acknowledge himself worsted in a contest with two contemptible
Hebrews. In
vain did the magicians change their tone, and make the
acknowledgment
— “This is the finger of God”— their
altered spirit had
no effect
upon him. No — whoever changed or blenched — he would
persevere —
his heart had become hardened — if now and then he quailed,
and seemed
on the verge of yielding, yet after a time he drew back —
always
provoking God more and more by his continual perverseness, until
at last all
The magicians, who had had a
large share in causing his entrance upon
an evil
course, found themselves unable to arrest his steps, and must be
regarded as
in part responsible for the final catastrophe. So nations are
often urged
by evil counselors into wars or rebellions, which they soon
bitterly
regret; but it is too late to stop the evil. Men in business are
recommended
to adopt questionable means of pushing or retrieving their
fortunes,
and embark on courses from which their advisers would fain
withdraw
them; but it is impossible. Advisers should recognize the
greatness
of their responsibility from the first, and set themselves against
the very
beginning of evil, else they will find the course of affairs soon get
beyond
their control — they will be
utterly powerless to stop the
avalanche which they have set in motion.
THE
FOURTH PLAGUE – FLIES
vs. 20-24 – “And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and
stand before Pharaoh; lo, he cometh forth to the
water; and say unto him, Thus
saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve
me. Else, if thou wilt not
let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of
flies upon thee, and upon thy
servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses:
and the houses of the
Egyptians shall be full
of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are.
And I will sever in that day the
swarms of flies shall be there” – The “severance” is a new
feature, and one
distinguishing the later from the earlier plagues. It was an
additional mark of the
miraculous character of the visitations, well calculated
to impress all thoughtful and
honest minds. (Think of
the so-called “open-mindedness” of liberals today – I am
of the opinion that Christians do not have a
lock on “hypocrisy” – CY – 2010)
By all such
it would be seen that the God who could make this severance was no
local God of the Hebrews only, but one whose power
extended over the whole earth.
“to the end thou mayest know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth.
And I will put a division” – (literally
“a redemption” – a sign that they are
redeemed from bondage) “between
my people and thy people” – (not thine any
longer) - “tomorrow shall this sign be.” - Particulars of time and place
are fixed
beforehand, to mark clearly that the visitation does not
take place by chance, or by
mere natural law, but by Gods positive decree and by
his agency. “And the LORD
did so; and there came a grievous swarm of flies” - Rather “a multitude of beetles.”
As with the
frogs, so with the beetles, it aggravated the infliction, that, being sacred
animals, they might not be destroyed or injured.
Beetles were sacred to Ra, the sun-
god; and one form of Ra, Chepra, was
ordinarily represented under the form of a
beetle, or as a man with a beetle for his head. [Smith’s A Dictionary of the Bible says
it is now generally supposed that the dogfly is meant,
which at certain seasons is
described as a far worse plague than mosquitoes. The bite is exceeding sharp and
painful, causing severe inflammation, especially in
the eyelids. Coming in immense
swarms, they cover all objects in black and
loathsome masses, and attack every
exposed part of a traveler’s person with incredible
pertinacity. – Canon Cook]
{Vernon
McGee says these flies were most likely the sacred beetle or scarab as
they are known in
reflected in the fact that Pharaoh was willing to reach
some sort of compromise
with Moses at this time. Notice in the next section the proposal of
Pharaoh as
these invaded the land}. (My
input in this is “do scarabs swarm?” – CY – 2010)
“into the house of
Pharaoh, and into his servants’ houses, and into all the
“destroyed;” i.e. grievously injured, or “devastated”[as
Kalisch renders]. The beetles
seriously damaged the growing crops. It has been noticed
that — setting apart the
last and most terrible of the plagues, (death of the first-born) which stands
as it were
by itself — the remainder divide themselves into three groups
of three each — two
in each group coming with a warning, and the third without.
(See chps. 8:16; 9:8; 10:21)
In other
respects, no great regularity is observable. There is a general principle of
increasing
severity in the afflictions, but it does not obtain
throughout the entire series. The first three
caused annoyance, rather than actual injury, either to
persons or property. Of the next three,
two were upon property, one upon both property and person (ch. 9:10). Of the remaining
three, two again inflicted injury on property, while one
(the plague of darkness) was a mere
personal annoyance. The exact character of the fourth
plague depends on the proper
translation of the word ‘arob.
The Jewish commentators connected this word with ‘Ereb
and ‘Arab, words meaning “mingled” or “mixed;” and
supposed a mixed multitude of
animals — beasts, reptiles, and insects — to be meant.
But the expression used
throughout, which is ha-’arob, “the ‘arob,” marks very clearly a single definite species.
So much was
clear to the LXX., who rendered the word by kuno>muia, “the dog-fly,”
which is not the common house-fly (Musca domestica), but a
distinct species
(Musca canina). Flies of this kind are said to constitute a
terrible affliction in
Philo, De vit. Mos. 2. p. 101; Munk,
and do no harm to houses or to the fruits of the field, whereas
the ‘arob is spoken
of as a
pest in the houses, and as “destroying the land” (v. 24). It has been, therefore, suggested
that the Blatta orientalis, or kakerlaque, a kind of beetle, is really intended. These
creatures
suddenly appear upon
the
gnaw and destroy clothes, household furniture,
leather, and articles of every kind,
and either
consume or render unavailable all eatables”(Kalisch). They sometimes drive
persons out
of their houses; and they
also devastate the fields.
.
In some respects the good and the bad appear to
be treated alike in this life, and
no difference to be made between them. “God maketh his sun to rise on the
evil and on the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”
(Matthew 5:45).
The Preacher’s experience was that “all
things
come alike to
all; there is one
event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the
clean and
to the unclean;
to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacrificeth not; as is
the good, so is
the sinner; and he that sweareth as he that feareth an
oath”(Ecclesiastes
9:2). If God sends a pestilence upon a land, or a drought, or
an excess of
rain, or any other calamity, the good and the bad seem to suffer
equally; no difference to be put between them. This is the first impression of
the contemplative philosopher when he looks upon human
life; and it is a true
impression to a great extent. But there are limitations,
which, though easily
overlooked at the first glance, become apparent
upon more careful examination.
God does not
treat all nations alike — he favors those which observe His laws;
punishes those who disobey them. He seems sometimes especially to
bless
certain faithful families, as that of David, and to rain plagues
upon others, as
those of Saul, Herod the Great, and Napoleon. He gives, on the
whole, to good
men certain temporal advantages over bad men, as
those which flow naturally
(i.e. by His
appointment) from industry, honesty, prudence, sobriety, and
other
virtues. The result is that “godliness”
is said in Scripture to “have the
promise of this
life”(I Timothy
4:8). And if we take into consideration the
satisfaction
of a good conscience, the confidence towards God, the calm trust,
and the
certain hope which sustain the good, and set in the opposite scale the
doubts and
fears and horrors of an evil conscience which afflict the bad, we
shall have
little doubt that the balance of happiness, even in this life, is
with
the
servants of God. Still, no doubt the great “division” is put hereafter.
“When the Son of Man shall come in his glory,
and all the holy angels
with Him, before Him
shall be gathered all nations; and He
shall
separate them one
from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from
the goats — and He shall set the sheep on His right hand,
but the goats
on the left” (Matthew 25:31-33). Awful the separation, where
between the
two “there
is a great gulf fixed”(Luke 16:26) — on the one side heavenly
joy and
perfect felicity — on the other, “the
blackness of darkness for
ever” - (Jude 13).
THE
REACTION OF PHARAOH TO THE PLAGUE OF FLIES
vs. 25-32 – “And Pharaoh called for Moses and
for Aaron, and said, Go ye,
sacrifice to your God in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for
we
shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians
to the LORD our God: lo, shall
we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians
before their eyes” - if they
held a
great festival anywhere in
religious feelings of their neighbors. Some animals would
be sure to be sacrificed — white
cows, or heifers, for instance — by some of the
people, which the Egyptians regarded it as
sacrilegious to put to death. A bloody conflict, or even a
civil war, might
be the consequence. “and will they not stone us?” - Death was
the legal penalty for
wilfully killing
any sacred animal in
been a legal punishment in
feared the people present taking the law into their
own hands, seizing the sacrificers,
and killing them by this ready method. “We
will go three days’ journey into the
wilderness” - This was the demand made from
the first (ch. 5:3) by Divine direction
(ch. 3:18). Its object was to secure the absence of
Egyptians as witnesses – “and
sacrifice to the LORD our God, as He shall command us” - Compare ch. 10:26,
where Moses observes - “We know not with what we must serve the Lord until
we come thither.” Divine
directions were expected as to the number and the selection
of the victims. “And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that
ye may sacrifice to the
LORD your God in the wilderness; only ye shall not go very far away: intreat
for me. And Moses said, Behold, I go out from thee, and I will intreat the LORD
that the swarms of flies may depart from
Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his
people, to morrow” - As Pharaoh had fixed the “morrow” for the departure of the second
plague (v. 10), so Moses now announces a similar date
for the departure of the fourth. He
adds a remonstrance against any further deceit,
which Pharaoh must have
felt to be well deserved – “but let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more in not
letting the people go to sacrifice to the LORD. And
Moses went out from
Pharaoh, and entreated the LORD. And the LORD did according to the word
of Moses; and He removed the swarms of flies
from Pharaoh, from his servants,
and from his people; there remained not one”. The hand of God was shown in the
removal no less than in the infliction of the plagues.
The complete disappearance was
as abnormal as the sudden coming - “And Pharaoh hardened his heart
at this time
also, neither would he let the people go.” The fourth plague moves the Pharaoh more
than any preceding one. He still cannot bring himself
to grant the demand of Moses; but
he offers a compromise. The Israelites shall have a respite from their toils,
and be permitted
to hold their festival, and offer the needful sacrifices in
good reasons not accepted, he yields
even further — he will let the people go and sacrifice
in the wilderness — only they must “not
go far away” – (v. 28). Having
made this promise,
he obtains for the second time the intercession of Moses and
the discontinuance of the plague
in consequence of it. But then, as before, when he saw that
there was respite (v. 15), he
retracted his promise, hardened himself, and refused to
allow the people to quit
(v. 32). (Beware of
sinner, that you do not harden and change your mind like Pharaoh –
“He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed,
and that without remedy” - [Proverbs
29:1] - CY – 2010)
(vs. 25-26) - The struggles of political and social life, the
conflicting claims
of races, nations, states, classes, parties, are usually
terminated, and perhaps,
under the existing condition of things, are best
terminated, by compromise.
Let neither
side get all it wants — let both yield something to the other — let
the prudent
and the moderate on each side seek an intermediate course
between the
two extremes advocated — and the result is often peace and
something
approaching to contentment. Compromise is the soul of
diplomacy —
the idol of clever Parliamentary leaders and party managers
— the oil,
as has been said, whereby the wheels of the world are made to
run
smoothly. But in religion, compromise is out of place.
ü There must
be no compromise on any question of morality. If a
thing is wrong, it must be got rid of, not tolerated under
certain
restrictions; e.g., slavery, prostitution,
vivisection, intemperance.
A compromise
between vice and virtue is an insult to virtue.
(THERE IS
ü There must
be no compromise with respect to doctrine. Doctrine is
either
false or true; and between truth and falsity there is no half-way
house.
Half a truth is a lie. To compromise the truth, is to give place
to
a lie.
ü There must
be no compromise with respect to any Christian duty. The
laws
of God are plain and must be obeyed. Not to obey them is to
disobey
them. Moses was ordered to lead his people out of
have
accepted Pharaoh’s offer would have been a flagrant breach of the
command
given to him. It was not necessary for him to see any ill
consequences,
in order that he should feel bound to reject it.
consequences
even could none have been foreseen — would have been
sure
to follow. For he would have forfeited God’s blessing — he would
have
entered on the path of disobedience — to curry favor with an
earthly
monarch he would have offended against the King of Heaven.
EARTH –(v. 29)
- “Let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more.” Deceit is
despicable in the meanest of men. How much more in a king! Subterfuge,
tricks, lies, are said to be the refuge of the weak, the only
resource whereby
they can meet and defend themselves against the violence and
oppressiveness
of the strong. What need has a king of them? A king
drags his honor in the
dust when he forfeits his word, and does more to
lower the dignity of kings in
general
than fifty rebels or revolutionists. And
when kings err, in this or any
other way,
it is the duty of those who have the opportunity, to rebuke them.
Elijah rebuked Ahab; Azariah, son of Oded, rebuked Asa; Eliezer, Jehoshaphat;
Azarlah the high priest, Uzziah; John Baptist, Herod Antipas. Jesus Himself
spoke of
Herod as “that fox,” The
great are very apt to urge that whoever says
a word in
their dispraise is “speaking
evil of dignities”(Jude 8), and so
offending
against the law of God. But the examples cited show that “dignities”
have no
claim to exemption from the rebukes and reproofs of God’s servants.
Dignities ought
to be above needing rebuke. They ought to set an example of
virtue and
high-mindedness, and, above all, of regard for their word, when
once they
have pledged it. What might be forgiven in inferior men, cannot be
pardoned in
them. “Be wise, O ye kings; be
instructed, ye judges of the
earth.” – (Psalm 2:10) - “A city set on a hill cannot be hid.” – (Matthew
5:14)
"Excerpted
text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."