God was in it all, for the stout heart | remission, yielding. Thus Is. 35, 3,

of the king was to be brought down by repeated blows, and the whole train of events so ordered that he should be magnificently triumphed over. This is indicated still more plainly in what follows.- - Which I have put in thine hand. Which I have put in thy power; which I have enabled and authorized thee to perform before him.- - I will harden his heart. Heb. 13 n p ehazzëk eth libbo, I will strengthen his heart. Thus the Most High precludes the possibility of ascribing the result to any thing unforeseen or fortuitous; or of supposing that he could not, if he pleased, have curbed the tyrant's arrogance and brought him to submit in a moment. Pharaoh will not hold out in rebellion because he could not be subdued, but because infinite wisdom had great ends to accomplish in suffering him to prolong his obstinacy. But as the language here employed is liable to be wrested widely from its legitimate meaning, it will be necessary to weigh it with more than ordinary precision. It is worthy of remark that the Heb. text in speaking of the 'hardening' of Pharaoh's heart, employs in different parts of the narrative three distinct words differing from each other by a marked diversity of import, but which are all indiscriminately rendered in the common version by 'harden.' These are pin hazak, to strengthen, confirm; kabad, to make heavy; and Op kashah, to make hard, in the sense of difficult, intractable, rigid or stiff. The whole number of passages in which Pharaoh's heart is said to have been hardened' is nineteen, in thirteen of which the term employed is 'hazak;' in five, 'kabad; and in one 'kashah.' The passage before us belongs to the former class; 'I will harden (PN ehazzëk) his heart;' i. e. I will make strong, firm, determined. The original properly signifies to brace or tighten up, in opposition to a state of relaxation,

Strengthen ye the weak hands and con firm the feeble knees.' In its legitimate import it is applied rather to the vigorous tension of a man's courage or reso lution than to the obduration of the moral sensibilities. Its prevailing sense may be gathered from the following passages: Jer. 23. 14, They strengthen also the hands of evil-doers, that none doth return from his wickedness ;' i. e. they make them more determined. Judg. 9, 24, And upon the men of Shechem which aided him in the killing of his brethren. Heb. which strengthened him ;' i. e. instigated him. Is. 41. 7, 'So the carpenter encouraged the goldsmith;' i. e. urged on. 2 Chron. 26. 8, And his name spread abroad, for he strengthened himself exceeding. ly;' i. e. he acted with great vigor, conquering all obstacles by the energy of his character. When God therefore is represented as saying, 'I will harden (strengthen) Pharoah's heart,' the lan guage implies simply, that the course of events should be so ordered that, without any positive divine influence exerted upon him, the haughty king should take occasion to confirm himself in his disregard of the counsels of the Most High, and instead of being bowed and humbled by the displays of Omnipotence should array himself in a posture of more determined resistance to the mandate of Jehovah. This God is said to have done because he permitted it to be done. A similar instance is related in Deut. 2. 30, But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.' So also Josh. 11. 20, 'For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly.' Yet in the present instance it is expressly said, ch. 9. 34, that Pharaoh hardened his

22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, y even my first-born. 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if

Hos. 11. 1. Rom. 9. 4. 2 Cor. 6. 18. y Jer. 31.9. James 1. 18.

own heart; and the exhortation of the Pealmist is, Ps.95.8, 'Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation,' as though is were a voluntary act in those in whom it takes place with which God could be by no means chargeable. The expression involves no difficulty provided the ordinary usus loquendi be borne in mind.

22. Israel is my son, even my first Born. That is, beloved and favored beyond other nations; dear to me as a first born child. Thus Hos. 11..1, When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt.' Israel is here a collective denomination for all the natural seed of Jacob, who are called God's son' as a title of favor, and his first-born as a note of honorable relationship, pointing to their preeminence above all other nations. For as the first-born in a family was consecrated to God as his peculiar portion, so were the children of Israel adopted from among the nations as a peculiar treasure above all people, Ex. 19. 5, from whom was appointed to descend, according to the flesh, the Messiah, 'the first-born of every creature.' The epithet 'first-born' is at once a term of dignity and of endearment. Thus Ps. 89. 26, 27, He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, the Rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my first-born, higher than the king's of the earth.' This is a mutual recognition of the privileges of adoption.

Let my son go. He is my son, not yours; he comes under allegiance to another lord; you are not to claim or exercise jurisdiction over him.

thou refuse to let him go, behold, z I will slay thy son, even thy first-born. 24 ¶ And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD a met him, and sought to kill him.

2 ch. 11. 5. & 12. 29. a Numb. 22. 22. b Gen. 17. 14.

go, &c. These, it would seem, were the words not of Moses, but of God speaking through the person of Moses. Such, at least, is the usual and more obvious interpretation; yet there is a remarkable apparent change of persons in passing from the 22d to the 23d verse, and if it were possible to conceive of the words being spoken at the same time to Moses himself on the principle announced, Is. 8. 18, Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel,' it would seem to afford an easier expli cation of the remarkable incident mentioned in the two next verses, which comes in a manner so abrupt and almost unaccountable in this connexion. It would certainly tend to inspire Moses with a deeper impression of the fearful consequences of Pharaoh's refusing compliance with the divine mandate, had he himself barely escaped the loss of his own son by reason of his neglect to fulfil an express injunction of heaven! May it not then be supposed that there is involved in the address to Pharaoh an intimation also to Moses himself of danger to his first-born, if he neglected longer to circumcise him, and put him into that condition in which he could acceptably serve the God of his fathers? By circumcising his son he would put him virtually into the same relation to God as the nation of Israel would be in when 'let go' by Pharaoh from their bondage, and brought to worship and serve him in the wilderness.

24. It came to pass by the way in the inn. Heb. bammalon, in the lodging-place. For the true import of 23. And I say unto thee, Let my son this expression see Note on Gen. 42. 27.

It would appear that they had not yet | tioned, v. 23, to visit his son with some reached the place of their final desti- alarming sickness which threatened to nation, though they may have entered prove fatal. In the note on Ex. 2. 22, within the bounds of Egypt. Comp. v. we adverted to the very great improba20. The Lord met him. That is, bility of Moses being the father of a met him in the tokens of displeasure. very young child at the time when he Gr. and Chal. The angel of the Lord set out for Egypt, which was forty years met him.' It is undoubtedly clear from after he first entered Midian. How many passages of the sacred narrative, much more improbable is it that his that the term 'Lord' (Jehovah) is sy eldest son was now an infant or a little nonymous with the angel of the Lord,' child? We cannot but infer from the and that'angel of the Lord' is used to narrative, ch. 2. 15-22, that Moses mardenote the supernatural manifestation | ried shortly after entering the family of the Deity by means of some visible or sensible symbol. — ¶ Sought to kill him. That is, made a show of intending to kill him; manifested alarming signs of wrath, probably by visiting him with some threatening disease. Language like this must of course be understood in consistency with what we know of the divine attributes. He in whose hands our breath is has no occasion to seek to take away the life of any of his creatures. The being which he originated he can at any instant extinguish. The phrase is doubt less advisedly chosen to indicate a delay, a respite, on the part of the Most High, as if he were reluctant to enter upon the work of judgment. But who is to be understood by the pronoun 'him' in this connexion? Was it Moses himself or his first-born son, who was the subject of the menacing judgment? The Arabic version of Saadias has 'he rushed upon his son,' and as, according to the view suggested above, the first-born of Moses was the subject last spoken of, we see no objection to consider that as the true construction. At the same time, it may be properly said that Moses himself was put in peril in the person of his son. See Note on Gen. 9. 25. The probability we think is, that there was some criminal delay in Moses in respect both to this rite and to the prosecution of his mission, and that it pleased God, in accordance with his conditional denunciation above men

of Jethro, and that the birth of his firstborn occurred in all probability within the usual period of such an event. If so, and if his circumcision had been deferred to the present time, instead of being now an infant or a child, he must have been a full grown man of upwards of thirty years of age. And if this be admitted we can see an ample reason for the divine displeasure manifested on this occasion. It was not a delay of a few months, but of many years, that elicited such tokens of judgment; and if it be asked why this expression of anger was reserved to the present time; why it vented itself rather at this particular juncture than at any other, we can only suggest in reply that it was with a view to give it a typical or symbolical import; to bring it into connexion with the threatening against Pharaoh, in order that Moses might have a more impressive sense of the danger of disobeying the commands of Heaven.

There would seem, at any rate, to be some link of connexion between this incident and the previous address to Moses, v. 22, 23, and if any other can be suggested more probable, we have no interest in adhering to our proposed interpretation, although it is one that does not, that we perceive, offer any violence to the text. The reader who refers to Rosenmuller's Comment ary will see that it has long been doubted to whom to refer the pronouns relative.

25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her

c Josh. 5. 2, 3.

son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou

to me.

25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, &c. That is, a knife made of a stone sharpened. That such instruments were in use at this early period, may be inferred from Josh. 5. 2, 'The Lord said unto Joshua, make thee sharp knives, (Heb. 'knives of stones') and circumcise again the children of Israel ;' where the Chal. has sharp razors ;' and the Gr. 'stone knives.' Thus Herodotus, describing the preparations for embalming a dead body, says, "they cut around the hips with a sharp Ethiopic stone 'Flints and other hard stones formed the tools and cutting instruments of almost all nations before the art of work-people and in a state of society whose ing iron was discovered. We find such instruments still in use among savages, and discover them occasionally buried in different parts of Europe and Asia, showing the universality of their use when the people were ignorant of iron. They were no doubt formed, as savages form them at present; that is, they were shaped and sharpened on a kind of grindstone, until, at a great expense of time, labor, and patience, they were brought to the desire figure. They were then fitted to a handle, and used nearly in the same way as we use our instruments and tools of iron. From the act of Zipporah, we are, however, not authorized to infer that instruments and tools of metal were not common at the time and in the neighborhood before us. We shall soon have occasion to see the contrary. The fact seems to be, that Zipporah knew that sharp stones were exclusively used in Egypt and elsewhere, in making incisions on the human person; and she therefore either used such an instrument, or employed in its room one of the flints with which the region they were traversing is abundantly strewed.' Pict. Bible. As the danger apprehended was imme

diately averted upon the circumcision of their son, it is plain that the delay of this ordinance was its procuring cause, although we are not informed whether the parents learned this from an express revelation, or from the course of their own reflections. There is doubt. less something abhorrent to our ideas of propriety in the mother's performing this rite upon an adult son, but against this we must set the whole strength of the evidence that he was adult, that he was the first-born, and also the fact that it was a mother complying with a divine requisition, and that among a

sentiments and usages were very different from ours. Cast it at his feet. Heb. 1 1 vattigga leraglauv, made it to touch his feet. Chal. Brought it near before him.' Gr. She fell at his feet.' Jerus. Targ. She laid it at the feet of the destroyer.' The clause is difficult of explication. By the mass of commentators, Zipporah is supposed to have cast the prepuce, or circumcised foreskin, of her son, besmeared with blood, at the feet of Moses, and in a reproachful and angry manner to have addressed him in the words immediately following. Others, however, with perhaps equal plausibility, suppose it to mean, that she made it to touch his feet, or rather his legs, in the act of cutting, for the original term is by no means that which is ordinarily employed to signify casting or throwing down. The true interpretation is doubtless to be determined by the ensuing words. - Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. Heb. 3 hathan damim attah li, a spouse, or bridegroom, of bloods art thou to me. Here again the interpreter finds himself encompassed with difficulties. The question that almost defies solution is, whether these

26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

27 And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness d to meet

1 d ver. 14.

further effects of his displeasure. The signs of his anger ceased when the occasion ceased. Jerus. Targ. The Destroyer let him go.' The phrase is taken from the act of relaxing a vigorous grasp. The original term is similarly applied, 1 Chron. 21. 15, 'And he said unto the angel that destroyed, It is enough stay (hereph, relax, remit) now thine hand.' So also Josh. 10. 6,

And the men of Gibeon sent unto Joshua to the camp to Gilgal, saying, slack (hereph) not thine hand from thy servants, &c.' Notwithstanding all the obscurity that envelopes the trans

words are to be considered as addressed to Moses or to her son. By those who adopt the common construction, and suppose Moses himself to have been the person endangered, and the child an infant, Zipporah is understood as virtually saying; 'Behold the evidence of my intense affection towards thee. I have jeoparded the life of my babe as the ransom for thine. In order to free thee from danger, and, as it were, to espouse thee to myself anew, to make thee once more a bridegroom, I have not shunned to shed the blood of this dear child, even under perilous circumstances, when the hardships of the jour-action here recorded, we learn from it, ney may render the operation fatal.' But a far preferable construction, in our opinion, is to consider the words as addressed to the son, now grown up, from his being espoused, as it were, to God by the seal of circumcision. Aben Ezra remarks, 'It is the custom of women to call a son when he is circumcised a spouse ( hathan).' Kimchi in his Lexicon, under concurs in the same view, which is also adopted by Schindler, Spencer, Mede, and others. The idea that Zipporah intended to upbraid her husband with the cruelty of the rite which his religion required him to perform, seems hardly tenable; for as she was a Midianitess, and so a daughter of Abraham by Keturah, it is not easy to imagine her altogether a stranger to the ceremony of circumcision, which had been from the earliest ages perpetuated in all the branches of the Abrahamic race, and is even observed by the followers of Mohammed at the present day, not as an institution of the prophet himself, but as an ancient rite received from Ishmael.

26. So he let him go. Heb. yereph mimmenu, he slackened from him. That is, God desisted from the

(1) That God takes notice of and is much displeased with the sins of his own people, and that the putting away of their sins is indispensably necessary to the removal of the divine judgments. (2) That no circumstances of prudence or conveniency can ever with propriety be urged as an excuse for neglecting a clearly commanded duty, especially the observance of sacramental ordinances. (3) That he who is to be the interpreter of the law to others ought in all points to be blameless, and in all things conformed to the law himself. (4) That when God has procured the proper respect to his revealed will, the controversy between him and the offender is at an end; the object of his government being not so much to avenge himself as to amend the criminal.-From Ex. 18. 2, it would seem that Zipporah and her sons were sent back to his father-in-law, where they remained till Jethro brought them to Moses in the wilderness.

27. The Lord said unto Aaron, &c. The scene of domestic danger and distress described above is speedily followed by another of a pleasanter kind, viz., the interview between the two brothers in the wilderness. The present