Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 1:15
And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one [was] Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
15. The names were preserved by tradition (Di.) as those of two noble-minded women, who in perilous times had done their duty to God and their people, and refused to obey the inhuman command of the heathen king. Obviously if the numbers of the Israelites even remotely approached 600,000 males (Exo 12:37), far more than two midwives must have been required: either the numbers were in reality very much less, or these were the only midwives whose names were remembered.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
15 22. The second measure. The Heb. midwives are commanded to slay all male infants that are born. V. 15 connects directly with v. 12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Hebrew midwifes – Or midwives of the Hebrew women. This measure at once attested the inefficacy of the former measures, and was the direct cause of the event which issued in the deliverance of Israel, namely, the exposure of Moses. The women bear Egyptian names, and were probably Egyptians.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. Hebrew midwives] Shiphrah and Puah, who are here mentioned, were probably certain chiefs, under whom all the rest acted, and by whom they were instructed in the obstetric art. Aben Ezra supposes there could not have been fewer than five hundred midwives among the Hebrew women at this time, but that very few were requisite see proved on Ex 1:19. See Clark on “Ex 1:19“.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Hebrew midwives; such as not only were employed about the Hebrew women, but were Hebrews themselves, not Egyptians, as some suppose; as may appear,
1. Because they are expressly called, not the midwives of the Hebrews, but
the Hebrew midwives.
2. The Egyptian midwives would not willingly employ their time and pains among the meanest and poorest of servants, as these were. And if they were sent in design by the king, he had lost his end, which was to cover his cruelty with cunning, and to persuade the people that their death was not from his intention, but from the ellarices and dangers of child-bearing.
3. The Hebrew women, as they had doubtless midwives of their own, so they would never have admitted others.
4. They are said to fear God, Exo 2:17,21.
You are not to think that these were the only midwives to so many thousands of Hebrew women, but they were the most eminent among them; and it may be, for their excellency in that profession called to the service of some Egyptian ladies, and by them known to Pharaoh, who might therefore think by their own interest, and by the promise of great rewards, or by severe threatenings, to oblige them to comply with his desires; and if he met with the desired success by them, he meant to proceed further, and to engage the rest in like manner.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. the king of Egypt spake to theHebrew midwivesTwo only were spoken toeither they were theheads of a large corporation [LABORDE],or, by tampering with these two, the king designed to terrify therest into secret compliance with his wishes [CALVIN].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives,…. It is difficult to say who these midwives were, whether Egyptian or Hebrew women. Josephus is of opinion that they were Egyptians, and indeed those the king was most likely to succeed with; and it may seem improbable that he should offer such a thing to Hebrew women, who he could never think would ever comply with it, through promises or threatenings; and the answer they afterwards gave him, that the Hebrew women were not as the Egyptian women, looks as if they were of the latter: and yet, after all, it is more likely that these midwives were Hebrew women, their names are Hebrew; and besides, they are not said to be the midwives of Hebrew women, but Hebrew midwives; nor does it seem probable that the Hebrew women should have Egyptian midwives, and not those of their own nation; and they were such as feared the Lord; and the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem are express for it, and they pretend to tell us who they were: “of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah”; the one, they say, was Jochebed, the wife of Amram, and mother of Moses and Aaron, and the other Miriam their sister; and this is the sense of many of the Jewish writers f: but whatever may be said for Jochebed, it is not credible that Miriam should be a midwife, who was but a girl, or maid, at this time, about seven years of age, as the following chapter shows, and much less one of so much repute as to be spoke to by the king. It may seem strange, that only two should be spoke to on this account, when, as Aben Ezra supposes, there might be five hundred of them: to which it may be answered, that these were the most noted in their profession, and the king began with these, that if he could succeed with them, he would go on to prevail on others, or engage them to use their interest with others to do the like; or these might be the midwives of the principal ladies among the Israelites, in one of whose families, according as his magicians had told, as the Targum of Jonathan observes, should be born a son, by whom the land of Egypt would be destroyed; of which Josephus g also takes notice; and therefore he might be chiefly solicitous to destroy the male children of such families; but Aben Ezra thinks, that these two were the chief over the rest of the midwives, and who collected and paid to the king the tribute out of their salaries, which was laid upon them, and so he had an opportunity of conversing with them on this subject.
f T. Bab. Sotah, fol. 11. 2. Midrash Kohelet, fol. 74. 1. Jarchi in loc. g Ut supra. (Antiq. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 1.)
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
As the first plan miscarried, the king proceeded to try a second, and that a bloody act of cruel despotism. He commanded the midwives to destroy the male children in the birth and to leave only the girls alive. The midwives named in Exo 1:15, who are not Egyptian but Hebrew women, were no doubt the heads of the whole profession, and were expected to communicate their instructions to their associates. in Exo 1:16 resumes the address introduced by in Exo 1:15. The expression , of which such various renderings have been given, is used in Jer 18:3 to denote the revolving table of a potter, i.e., the two round discs between which a potter forms his earthenware vessels by turning, and appears to be transferred here to the vagina out of which the child twists itself, as it were like the vessel about to be formed out of the potter’s discs. Knobel has at length decided in favour of this explanation, at which the Targumists hint with their . When the midwives were called in to assist at a birth, they were to look carefully at the vagina; and if the child were a boy, they were to destroy it as it came out of the womb. for rof from , see Gen 3:22. The w takes kametz before the major pause, as in Gen 44:9 (cf. Ewald, 243 a).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: 16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? 19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. 20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. 21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. 22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
The Egyptians’ indignation at Israel’s increase, notwithstanding the many hardships they put upon them, drove them at length to the most barbarous and inhuman methods of suppressing them, by the murder of their children. It was strange that they did not rather pick quarrels with the grown men, against whom they might perhaps find some occasion: to be thus bloody towards the infants, whom all must own to be innocents, was a sin which they had to cloak for. Note, 1. There is more cruelty in the corrupt heart of man than one would imagine, Rom 3:15; Rom 3:16. The enmity that is in the seed of the serpent against the seed of the woman divests men of humanity itself, and makes them forget all pity. One would not think it possible that ever men should be so barbarous and blood-thirsty as the persecutors of God’s people have been, Rev. xvii. 6. 2. Even confessed innocence is no defence against the old enmity. What blood so guiltless as that of a child new-born? Yet that is prodigally shed like water, and sucked with delight like milk or honey. Pharaoh and Herod sufficiently proved themselves agents for that great red dragon, who stood to devour the man-child as soon as it was born,Rev 12:3; Rev 12:4. Pilate delivered Christ to be crucified, after he had confessed that he found no fault in him. It is well for us that, though man can kill the body, this is all he can do. Two bloody edicts are here signed for the destruction of all the male children that were born to the Hebrews.
I. The midwives were commanded to murder them. Observe, 1. The orders given them, Exo 1:15; Exo 1:16. It added much to the barbarity of the intended executions that the midwives were appointed to be the executioners; for it was to make them, not only bloody, but perfidious, and to oblige them to betray a trust, and to destroy those whom they undertook to save and help. Could he think that their sex would admit such cruelty, and their employment such base treachery? Note, Those who are themselves barbarous think to find, or make, others as barbarous. Pharaoh’s project was secretly to engage the midwives to stifle the men-children as soon as they were born, and then to lay it upon the difficulty of the birth, or some mischance common in that case, Job iii. 11. The two midwives he tampered with in order hereunto are here named; and perhaps, at this time, which was above eighty years before their going out of Egypt, those two might suffice for all the Hebrew women, at least so many of them as lay near the court, as it is plain by Exo 2:5; Exo 2:6, many of them did, and of them he was most jealous. They are called Hebrew midwives, probably not because they were themselves Hebrews (for surely Pharaoh could never expect they should be so barbarous to those of their own nation), but because they were generally made use of by the Hebrews; and, being Egyptians, he hoped to prevail with them. 2. Their pious disobedience to this impious command, v. 17. They feared God, regarded his law, and dreaded his wrath more than Pharaoh’s, and therefore saved the men-children alive. Note, If men’s commands be any way contrary to the commands of God, we must obey God and not man, Act 4:19; Act 5:29. No power on earth can warrant us, much less oblige us, to sin against God, our chief Lord. Again, Where the fear of God rules in the heart, it will preserve it from the snare which the inordinate fear of man brings. 3. Their justifying themselves in this disobedience, when they were charged with it as a crime, v. 18. They gave a reason for it, which, it seems, God’s gracious promise furnished them with–that they came too late to do it, for generally the children were born before they came, v. 19. I see no reason we have to doubt the truth of this; it is plain that the Hebrews were now under an extraordinary blessing of increase, which may well be supposed to have this effect, that the women had very quick and easy labour, and, the mothers and children being both lively, they seldom needed the help of midwives: this these midwives took notice of, and, concluding it to be the finger of God, were thereby emboldened to disobey the king, in favour of those whom Heaven thus favoured, and with this justified themselves before Pharaoh, when he called them to an account for it. Some of the ancient Jews expound it thus, Ere the midwife comes to them they pray to their Father in heaven, and he answereth them, and they do bring forth. Note, God is a readier help to his people in distress than any other helpers are, and often anticipates them with the blessings of his goodness; such deliverances lay them under peculiarly strong obligations. 4. The recompence God gave them for their tenderness towards his people: He dealt well with them, v. 20. Note, God will be behind-hand with none for any kindness done to his people, taking it as done to himself. In particular, he made them houses (v. 21), built them up into families, blessed their children, and prospered them in all they did. Note, The services done for God’s Israel are often repaid in kind. The midwives kept up the Israelites’ houses, and, in recompence for it, God made them houses. Observe, The recompence has relation to the principle upon which they went: Because they feared God, he made them houses. Note, Religion and piety are good friends to outward prosperity: the fear of God in a house will help to build it up and establish it. Dr. Lightfoot’s notion of it is, That, for their piety, they were married to Israelites, and Hebrew families were built up by them.
II. When this project did not take effect, Pharaoh gave public orders to all his people to drown all the male children of the Hebrews, v. 22. We may suppose it was made highly penal for any to know of the birth of a son to an Israelite, and not to give information to those who were appointed to throw him into the river. Note, The enemies of the church have been restless in their endeavours to wear out the saints of the Most High, Dan. vii. 25. But he that sits in heaven shall laugh at them. See Ps. ii. 4.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 15-22:
Pharaoh’s strategy to control Israel’s population growth by the means of forced labor, did not succeed. He devised another scheme: one involving genocide.
Pharaoh ordered the midwives who attended the Israelite women, to kill all boy babies at birth. It is unlikely these two midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, were the only two who served the vast Israelite population. They were likely the superintendents, in charge of the guild of midwives, who gave orders to others who worked under their authority.
The midwives “feared God.” They refused to obey Pharaoh’s cruel edict. They told Pharaoh that the healthy Israelite women had already given birth when the midwives arrived. This was not true. But “God dealt well with the midwives,” and blessed them by giving them children of their own to care for them in their old age.
Did God bless a lie? No! The midwives did not have to lie in order to save their lives, or the lives of the Israelite male babies. By lying, they made it possible for God to demonstrate His power in a miraculous way to save His own people. But God blessed their fear of Him and their reverence for life.
It is never right to lie! God will not condemn lying in one instance and approve it in another. He would have us tell the truth at all costs — and then depend upon Him to protect and provide deliverance.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. And the king of Egypt spake. The tyrant now descends from the open violence and cruelty which had availed nothing, to secret plots and deceit. He desires the infants to be killed at their birth; and commands the midwives to be the instruments of this dreadful barbarity. We read of no such detestable example of inhumanity since the world began. I admit it has occasionally happened, that, upon the capture of a city, the conquerors have not spared even children and infants; that is to say, either in the heat of battle, or because the defense had been too obstinate, and they had lost many of their men, whose death they would avenge. It has happened, too, that an uncle, or brother, or guardian, has been impelled by the ambition of reigning to put children to death. It has happened, again, that in the detestation of a tyrant, and to destroy the very memory of his family, his whole offspring has been slain; and some have proceeded to such cruelty against their enemies, as to tear the little ones from their mothers’ breasts. But never did any enemy, however implacable, ever so vent his wrath against a whole nation, as to command all its male offspring to be destroyed in the midst of peace. This was a trial, such as to inflict a heavy blow on men of the utmost firmness, much more to bring low a fainting people, already weary of their lives. For, at first sight, each would think it more advantageous and desirable for them to sink down into an humbler state, than that the wrath of their enemies should be thus provoked against them by the blessings of God. And it is probable, such was the prostration of their minds, that they were not only sorely smitten, but almost stupified. For nothing else remained, but that the men should die without hope of offspring, and that the name and race of Abraham should soon be cut off, and thus all God’s promises would come to nought. In these days, in which we have to bear similar insults, and are urged to despair, as if the Church would soon be utterly destroyed, let us learn to hold up this example like a strong shield: seeing that it is no new case, if immediate destruction seem to await us, until the divine aid appears suddenly and unexpectedly in our extremity. Josephus falsely conjectures that the midwives were Egyptian women, sent out as spies; whereas Moses expressly says, that they had been the assistants and attendants of the Hebrew women in their travail; and this erroneous idea is plainly refuted by the whole context, in which it especially appears that they were restrained by the fear of God from yielding to the sinful desire of the tyrant. Hence it follows, that they were previously possessed with some religious feeling. But another question arises, why two midwives only are mentioned by name, when it is probable that, in so great a population, there were many? Two replies may be given; either that the tyrant addressed himself to these two, who might spread the fear of his power amongst the others; or, that, desiring to proceed with secret malice, he made a trial of the firmness of these two, and if he had obtained their acquiescence, he hoped to have easily succeeded with the others; for shame forbade him from issuing an open and general command.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Exo. 1:15. Hebrew midwives] It is curious, though it may not throw light on the precise relation in which these women stood to the Hebrew women, that their names should be of a like sig. (according to Frst): Shiphrah = beauty; Puah = gracefulness.
Exo. 1:16. Upon the stools] Perhaps a low seat employed by the mid wives; or the word may be used for a washing vessel of stone, in which they used to wash infants (Ges.) But the explanation of Frst appears to be, contextually, more forcible: Look to the two sexes.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 1:15-21
HIGH SOCIAL POSITION USED FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF A WICKED PURPOSE
I. That sometimes high social position exerts its authority for the accomplishment of a wicked and cruel purpose. (Exo. 1:15.)
1. The king commands the murder of the male children of the Israelites. What could be more diabolical than this? They were to be murdered in the birth. They were innocent of any plot against the Egyptian government. They had in no way injured the countryyet they are to be put to deathalmost before their first experience of life. None but the king dared to have uttered such a cruel mandate. Kings seem to have an idea that they can do what they like. What an abuse and degradation of regal power. It is this kind of thing that brings them into contempt.
2. He seeks to accomplish this by bringing the innocent into a participation of his murderous deed. These Hebrew midwives were of godly moral character. They feared Jehovah; they sympathised with the enslaved Israelites; they had no thought of doing their comrades any harm; as for murdering the offspring of those whom they attended in childbirth, the very suggestion was most revolting to them. Thus, the king tries to enkindle within the hearts and minds of these midwives the same envy, and unholy thought that occupied his own. It is almost unpardonable to suggest sin to those that have no previous occasion for, or idea of committing it, and especially when the suggestion is rendered authoritative by power and national supremacy. This suggestion was not only cruel and murderous, but it was subtle. In this way the king would be concealed as the murderer. It would be done by the midwives, and they even would not be detected in the act. Thus many simple lives would have been plunged into awful crimeand innocent victims would have suffered for the guilty. Tyrants are generally cowards, and seek such means for the accomplishment of their designs as are more likely to involve others than themselves.
II. When high social authority is used to further a wicked design we are justified in opposing its effort. (Exo. 1:17.)
1. We are not to do wrong because a king commands it. Many weak-minded people will do anything a king tells them. They think what he says must be right; they are flattered by his personal attention to them; they are awed by his pomp and splendour; they are bribed by his offer of reward (the king would no doubt promise these midwives ample recompense). When the highest personage in the realm needs an accomplice to aid in an evil deed, never help him, however humble or poor your station in life may be. It will be your ruin if you do; he will soon want to dispatch you, to shield himself from the possibility of detection. Right is the supreme monarch of the soul, and claims obedience before any temporal power. To oppose murder, when advocated by a king, and when it could be accomplished unknownand when, if known, would win the applause of a hostile nation, is heroicbenevolentdivinely rewardable, and is the duty of all who fear God.
2. Such opposition must embody the true principle of piety. The midwives feared Godmore than they did the king. This opposition to the cruel intent of the monarch was not obstinate, but it was the outcome of a conscience influenced by the Divine Spirit. We must always reject the idea of sin in a pious spiritfrom Christian motive.
3. Such opposition will secure for us the Divine protection. The king summoned the midwives to himself again. He asked why they had neglected his command. They replied fearlessly. No harm came to them. God will protect brave souls that dare to defy a wicked king.
III. That for such opposition we shall be Divinely Rewarded.
1. God dealt well with the midwives.
2. God made the midwives houses.
3. Men lose nothing by serving God in preference to a cruel king.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Exo. 1:15. Sin often brings men into companionships that otherwise they would despise.
It is a mercy that tyrants are often dependent upon others, of more tender sympathies, for the accomplishment of their designs.
The plan of murder is not so easy after all; there are persons to be consulted who may turn round upon us, and, on some ground, deny our authority. What if the midwives set themselves against Pharaoh? Two humble women may be more than a match for the great king of Egypt. No influence, how obscure soever, is to be treated with contempt [City Temple.]
Exo. 1:16. When burdens do not effect the will of tyrants on the Church, murder shall.
Cruelty on the first onset seeks to shed blood by subtilty.
Tyrants will make helps for life to be instruments of deathmidwives to be murderers.
Bloody powers suborn either such as be of the Church, or strangers to destroy them.
Subtle tyrants order the best opportunity at first, to hide their cruelty.
It is devilish to set a tender soul upon such bloody designs [Hughes].
Satan, in all his instruments, hath always aimed at the death of Israels males [Hughes].
No greater argument of an ill cause than a bloody persecution [Trapp].
Why were the males to be put to death?
1. Because they were the most capable of insurrection and war.
2. Because the Israelitish women were fairer than the Egyptian, and so might be kept for the purposes of lust.
3. Because the Israelitish women were industrious in spinning and needlework, and so were kept for service.
Exo. 1:17. The tyrant-projects of a wicked king may be thwarted by the piety of his subjects.
God has instruments in the world to aid His Church, as well as to persecute it.
Religion will deter men from the most terrible sins.
God gives courage to timid souls, to enable them to resist kingly wrong.
God makes them save life whom men appoint to destroy it.
The good hand of God doth keep the males, or best helps of the Churchs peace, when persecutors would kill.
Still the conflict rages between God and the tyrant king. On which side are we found?
Those who fear God are superior to all other fear. When our notion of authority terminates upon the visible and temporary, we become the victims of fickle circumstances; when that notion rises to the unseen and eternal, we enjoy rest amid the tumult of all that is merely outward, and therefore perishing. The men who fear God the most save their country. They make little noise, they hold no open-air demonstrations. All great workers in society are not in the front [City Temple].
Exo. 1:18. That tyrants are sometimes disappointed in those whom they expected to fulfil their designs.
That tyrants can call those who disappoint them to account:
1. In angerthe king was in a rage that his purpose had failed.
2. In disquietudethe king was perplexed as to the issue of Israels growth.
3. In astonishmentthat two women should have set at naught his royal commands. He did not know the great force of true womanhood.
Exo. 1:19. Faith in God enables men to give a reason for not doing wrong.
Tyrants are foiled by little instrumentalities in their efforts to destroy or injure the Church.
God can make His persecuted creatures more lively and strong to bear than others. Religion fires a timid soul with heroism.
Exo. 1:20. Persons who are instrumental in the saving of human life are pleasing to God.
Persons who render ineffective the designs of a tyrant, and preserve the Church from harm, are Divinely blessed.
All who fear God will be favourably dealt withnow and hereafter.
They who serve God serve a good master. Was God indifferent to the character and claims of the midwives who bore practical testimony for Him in the time of a nations trial? His eye was upon them for good, and His hand was stretched out day and night for their defence. They learned still more deeply that there was another King beside Pharoah; and in the realization of His presence Pharaoh dwindled into a secondary power, whose breath was in his nostrils, and whose commands were the ebullitions of moral insanity. No honest man or woman can do a work for God without receiving a great reward [City Temple].
There are times when nations are called upon to say No, to their Sovereigns. Such times are not to be sought for with pertinacious self-assertion, whose object is to make itself very conspicuous and important; but where they do occur, conscience is to assert itself with a dignity too calm to be impatient, and too righteous to be deceived [City Temple].
The Church must grow, even though the king seeks its death.
Exo. 1:21. God makes sure houses for the sons of His Church when persecutors destroy them [Hughes].
Our reward is proportionate to our fear of God.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Exo. 1:17.
The conscience, that sole monarchy in man,
Owing allegiance to no earthly prince;
Made by the edict of creation free;
Made sacred, made above all human laws,
Holding of heaven alone; of most divine
And indefeasible authority [Pollock].
Exo. 1:22. There is a woful gradation in sin. As mariners, setting sail, lose sight of the shore, then of the houses, then of the steeples, and then of the mountains and land; and as those that are waylaid by a consumption first lose vigour, then appetite, and then colour; thus it is that sin hath its woful gradations. None decline to the worst at first, but go from one degree of turpitude to another, until the very climax is reached.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(15) The Hebrew midwives.Or the midwives of the Hebrew women ( , LXX.). The Hebrew construction admits of either rendering. In favour of the midwives being Egyptians is the consideration that the Pharaoh would scarcely have expected Hebrew women to help him in the extirpation of the Hebrew race (Kalisch); against it is the Semitic character of the namesShiphrah, beautiful; Puah, one who cries out; and also the likelihood that a numerous and peculiar people, like the Hebrews, would have accoucheurs of their own race.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15, 16. A second and far more cruel edict now went forth . Herodotus shows (vol . 2:84) that medical theory and practice were highly perfected in Egypt, medical specialties being carefully cultivated; and the monuments show that the women were accoucheurs. Shiphrah and Puah were superintendents of the midwives, and are here designated the midwives, as Pharaoh’s chief butler and baker are called the butler and baker in Gen 11:1. This orderly superintendence of all industries is abundantly illustrated on the Theban tombs.
When ye see them upon the stools When ye look upon the birth, ( Targ. Onk.) At the very moment of birth they were to destroy the child, if a male, as they could easily do even before the mother had seen it. This edict was probably aimed specially at the leading families of Israel, for such only would be likely to employ a professional midwife. See Concluding Notes. (2.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Pharaoh Seeks To Destroy Israel Through Its Midwives ( Exo 1:15-22 ).
a
b The midwives fear God and do not obey him but save the male children alive (Exo 1:17).
c The king of Egypt demands why they have done this (Exo 1:18).
d The midwives reply that it is because of the quick births of the children (Exo 1:19).
c God deals well with the midwives and the people multiply (Exo 1:20).
b Because the midwives feared God He made them houses (Exo 1:21).
a Pharaoh charges the Egyptians to cast all males into the Nile but to save alive the daughters (Exo 1:22).
Note that in ‘a’ the midwives are charged with the decimation of the male babies while in the parallel it is the Egyptians who are then charged with it. In ‘b’ the midwives fear God and behave rightly and in the parallel God rewards them for their right behaviour. In ‘c’ the king of Egypt demands why they have done this, and in the parallel the greater than the king shows His approval by blessing them. Central to the section are the quick births of the children which are multiplying the Israelite population.
Exo 1:15
‘And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah.’
“The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives.” The king spoke, of course, through his representatives. His representatives spoke on his authority. All that happened in Egypt was described as done by the king, for his people were his slaves. The words spoken were to those midwives who had responsibility for ‘the Hebrews’. The named midwives may have been the ones who had overall charge of midwifery, not the only midwives. There would also be many experienced women who were not officially midwives but who fulfilled the task when necessary. The actual names are testified to among the North-western Semites of the 2nd millennium BC, one attested in the 18th century BC, the other in the 14th and are clearly genuine.
When giving birth a woman would crouch, possibly on a pile of stones (see Exo 1:16). Comparatively modern comparisons demonstrate how easily a slave worker could give birth behind a bush and then continue working. The midwives would first assist in the actual birth, and then by cutting the umbilical cord, washing the baby in water, and salting and wrapping it (compare Eze 16:4).
Note here the silence as to the king’s name, in contrast with the midwives. We may spend hours trying to work out who the king was, but we know instantly the names of the midwives, the servants of God, for their names are written before God. This emphasis on the recording of the names of His people continues on throughout Scripture. Each one who faithfully serves Him is known to Him by name.
It is all the more noteworthy here, and clearly deliberate in that apart from Moses everyone else is anonymous, even Moses’ parents, although their descent is mentioned in order to demonstrate that they were suitable parents for God’s chosen one. The emphasis is on the fact that God was at work and only His special instruments are named, because they were instruments of God. The remainder were simply a part of the great tapestry of His will.
Exo 1:16-19
‘And he said, “When you do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the two stones, if it is a son then you shall kill him but if it is a daughter then she shall live.” But the women feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing and have saved the men children alive?” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women, for they are lively and are delivered before the midwife comes to them.”
The order given by the authorities was clear. Male children born of Israelites must be smothered at birth. A series of ‘accidents’ must happen. The authorities wanted it done discreetly. Even they did not want to be involved in open genocide. This is a typical statement of bureaucrats who have not thought through the situation and cannot conceive that they will be disobeyed. Thus a supply of slaves will continue, while the prospectively dangerous ones will be got rid of by a cull. The girls could then be married to non-Israelites to produce further slaves, and the unity of the nation would cease to exist.
“On the two stones.” This may literally refer to two stones or more probably to a small pile. ‘Two’ can mean ‘a few’ (compare 1Ki 17:12). They would sit or squat on them in such a way as to aid the birth.
“The women feared God.” The contest has already begun between the king of Egypt, acknowledged in Egypt as one of the gods of Egypt, and God. These women feared God and obeyed Him, rather than obeying Pharaoh.
“God.” We note here that in the first two chapters of Exodus there is no mention of Yahweh. In a foreign land, and voluntarily away from the covenant land the description is in terms of God (Exo 1:20-21; Exo 2:22-25). Note how this was also true for their adventures in Egypt in the final chapters of Genesis (Genesis 40-50 with the exception of Gen 49:18 which is probably a standard worship saying). In Egypt they no longer ‘knew Yahweh’. For while they no doubt continued to worship Him as such (Moses’ mother or ancestor is called Yo-chebed’) it was outside the covenant situation, and they could not look for His covenant help in that land. They lost the realisation of Who and What He was. Indeed some worshipped Him alongside other gods. It is only once He begins His preparations for their return that the name Yahweh is again brought into mention (Exo 3:2; Exo 3:4; Exo 3:7; Exo 3:15-16), and equated with God (Exo 3:4). For He on His part has remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exo 2:24) and has ‘come down’. The case was different for Joseph in his captivity (Genesis 39). Then Yahweh was with him for he was there within Yahweh’s purpose for His covenant people. But to a people dwelling without much thought in Egypt with no thought of returning to the covenant land, He could only be ‘God’. He had not forgotten them, as what happens demonstrates, but His actions in the land of Egypt were by Him as their God and not as Yahweh, the name which links with covenant activity.
“They are lively.” Those who live as the slaves do find birth easier and quicker than those who are more pampered. There was thus some truth in this statement, and as the phenomenon could no doubt be testified to, their explanation was seemingly accepted.
Exo 1:20-21
‘And God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew extensively. And it happened that, because the midwives feared God, he made them houses.’
God prospered His people because the numbers of people continued to grow and expand rapidly, and God prospered the midwives and they too were fruitful (see Psa 128:1-3). ‘He made them houses’ probably means that they had many children so that their houses were established (compare 2Sa 7:11). This would probably be true of all the midwives not just the two mentioned. None would lose by obeying God. They prospered all round. They did what God desired, and God gave them what they desired. It is possible, however, that it means that they were provided with decent living accommodation.
The lesson for us all from this situation is that God does not necessarily step in to make life easy for His people even when He prospers them. Whom the Lord loves, He chastens for their good. Sometimes we may not understand what is happening, but if we saw things as He does we would realise what purpose He has in it.
Indeed we are challenged here about our own way of life. Is our prime purpose to serve God and do His will, or do we concentrate our efforts on ‘building cities’? We must ask ourselves, which is most important to us?
Exo 1:22
‘And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the Nile and every daughter you shall save alive.”
The surreptitious method having failed all pretence was laid aside. The order goes out from Pharaoh to all Egyptians that all Hebrew new born sons are to be thrown into the Nile, probably under the pretext of offering them to the gods. They were to be sacrificed to the Nile god. The daughters, however, were to be protected. They would cause no trouble and would have their uses. This served a twofold purpose. It demonstrated their loyalty to the Nile god, and it would in time limit the strength of Israel.
It is noteworthy that open murder was not the option. The killing was first to be hidden as due to childbirth and then to be seen as a religious act, as an offering to the Nile god. By this means they preserved their consciences. How easily men can make their religion a pretext for what they want to do, even when it is patently wrong. (Irreligious people find some other pretext).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Command to Kill all the Male Children
v. 15. And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah, v. 16. and he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools, v. 17. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. v. 18. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, v. 19. And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, v. 20. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, v. 21. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that He made them houses. v. 22. And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Exo 1:15-22
Some timesay five or six yearshaving elapsed and the Pharaoh’s first plan having manifestly failed, it was necessary for him either to give up his purpose, or to devise something else. Persevering and tenacious, he preferred the latter course. He bethought himself that a stop might be put to the multiplication of the Israelites by means of infanticide on a large scale. Infanticide was no doubt a crime in Egypt, as in most countries except Rome; but the royal command would legitimate almost any action, since the king was recognised as a god; and the wrongs of a foreign and subject race would not sensibly move the Egyptian people, or be likely to provoke remonstrance. On looking about for suitable instruments to carry out his design, it struck the monarch that something, at any rate, might be done by means of the midwives who attended the Hebrew women in their confinements. It has been supposed that the two mentioned, Shiphrah and Puah, might be the only midwives employed by the Israelites (Canon Cook and others), and no doubt in the East a small number suffice for a large population: but what impression could the monarch expect to make on a population of from one to two millions of souls by engaging the services of two persons only, who could not possibly attend more than about one in fifty of the births? The midwives mentioned must therefore be regarded as “superintendents,” chiefs of the guild or faculty, who were expected to give their orders to the rest. (So Kalisch, Knobel, Aben Ezra, etc.) It was no doubt well known that midwives were not always called in; but the king supposed that they were employed sufficiently often for the execution of his orders to produce an important result. And the narrative implies that he had not miscalculated. It was the disobedience of the midwives (Exo 1:17) that frustrated the king’s intention, not any inherent weakness in his plan. The midwives, while professing the intention of carrying out the orders given them, in reality killed none of the infants; and, when taxed by the Pharaoh with disobedience, made an untrue excuse (Exo 1:19). Thus the king’s second plan failed as completely as his first”the people” still “multiplied and waxed very mighty” (Exo 1:20).
Foiled a second time, the wicked king threw off all reserve and all attempt at concealment. If the midwives will not stain their hands with murder at his secret command, he will make the order a general and public one. “All his people” shall be commanded to put their hand to the business, and to assist in the massacre of the innocentsit shall he the duty of every loyal subject to cast into the waters of the Nile any Hebrew male child of whose birth he has cognisance. The object is a national one-to secure the public safety (see Exo 1:10): the whole nation may well be called upon to aid in carrying it out.
Exo 1:15
The Hebrew midwives. It is questioned whether the midwives were really Hebrew women, and not rather Egyptian women, whose special business it was to attend the Hebrew women in their labours. Kalisch translates, “the women who served as midwives to the Hebrews,” and assumes that they were Egyptians. (So also Canon Cook.) But the names are apparently Semitic, Shiphrah being “elegant, beautiful,” and Puah, “one who cries out.” And the most natural rendering of the Hebrew text is that of A. V.
Exo 1:16
The stools. The explanation furnished by a remark of Mr. Lane is more satisfactory than any other. In modern Egypt, he says, “two or three days before the expected time of delivery, the midwife conveys to the house the kursee elwiladeh, a chair of a peculiar form, upon which the patient is to be seated during the birth.” A chair of the form intended is represented on the Egyptian monuments.
Exo 1:17
The midwives feared God. The midwives had a sense of religion, feared God sufficiently to decline imbruing their hands in the innocent blood of a number of defenceless infants, and, rather than do so wicked a thing, risked being punished by the monarch. They were not, as appears by Exo 1:19, highly religiousnot of the stuff whereof martyrs are made; they did not scruple at a falsehood, believing it necessary to save their lives; and it would seem that they succeeded in deceiving the king.
Exo 1:19
They are vigorous. Literally, “they are lively.” In the East at the present day a large proportion of the women deliver themselves; and the services of professional accoucheurs are very rarely called in. The excuse of the midwives had thus a basis of fact to rest upon, and was only untrue because it was not the whole truth.
Exo 1:20, Exo 1:21
Therefore God did well to the midwives. Literally, “And God did well,” etc. (see Exo 1:21). Because they feared him sufficiently to disobey the king, and take their chance of a punishment, which might have been very severe-even perhaps deathGod overlooked their weak and unfaithful divergence from truth, and gave them a reward. He made them houses. He Messed them by giving them children of their own, who grew up, and gave them the comfort, support, and happiness which children were intended to give. There was a manifest fitness in rewarding those who had refused to bring misery and desolation into families by granting them domestic happiness themselves.
Exo 1:22
Every son that is born. The words are universal, and might seem to apply to the Egyptian, no less than the Hebrew, male children. But they are really limited by the context, which shows that there had never been any question as to taking the life of any Egyptian. With respect to the objection sometimes raised, that no Egyptian monarch would possibly have commanded such wholesale cold-blooded destruction of poor innocent harmless children, it is to be observed, first, that Egyptian monarchs had very little regard indeed for the lives of any persons who were not of their own nation. They constantly massacred prisoners taken in warthey put to death or enslaved persons cast upon their coasts (Diod. Sic. 1.67)they cemented with the blood of their captives, as Lenormant says, each stone of their edifices. The sacredness of human life was not a principle with them. Secondly, that tender and compassionate regard for children which seems to us Englishmen of the present day a universal instinct is in truth the fruit of Christianity, and was almost unknown in the ancient world. Children who were “not wanted” were constantly exposed to be devoured by wild beasts, or otherwise made away with; and such exposition was defended by philosophers. In Syria and Carthage they were constantly offered to idols. At Rome, unless the father interposed to save it, every child was killed. It would probably not have cost an Egyptian Pharaoh a single pang to condemn to death a number of children, any more than a number of puppies. And the rule “Salus publica suprema lex,” which, if not formulated, still practically prevailed, would have been held to justify anything. The river. Though, in the Delta, where the scene is laid throughout the early part of Exodus, there were many branches of the Nile, yet we hear constantly of “the river” (Exo 2:3, Exo 2:5; Exo 7:20, Exo 7:21; Exo 8:3, etc.), because one branch only, the Tanitic, was readily accessible. Tanks (Zoan) was situated on it.
HOMILETICS
Exo 1:15-22
Steps in sin.
Bad men, when their designs are frustrated, and things fall out otherwise than as they wish, are far from suspecting that it is God who opposes them and brings their counsels to nought. They find fault with themselves or their advisers, and suppose that, if their end is not to be compassed in one way, it may he obtained in another. Like Balak (Num 22:23.), they would outwit God; or rather, not realising his existence, they would force fortune by a combination of inventiveness, perseverance, and audacity. When one means fails, they do not lay aside their design, but seek another means. And their second plan is almost always more wicked than their first. Pharaoh follows up the cruel thought of grinding oppression by the still more cruel resolve to effect his purpose through murder. And not liking to incur the odium of open murder, he devises a secret system, a crypteia, which shall rid him of a certain number of his enemies, and yet keep him clear, even of suspicion. The midwives, had they come into his plan, would of course have said that the children they murdered were stillborn, or died from natural causes. But this crafty scheme likewise fails; and then what follows? His subtle brain invents a third plan, and it is the cruelest and wickedest of all. Grown shameless, he openly avows himself a murderer, takes his whole people into his confidence, compels them, so far as he can, to be a nation of murderers, and extends his homicidal project to all the males. “Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.” The Nile, according to his own religion, was a god, and no Egyptian corpse ever defiled it; but everything must give way that the king may work his wicked will, and the restraints of the national creed are as little regarded as those of natural morality. Facilis descensus Averni; the steps by which men go down the road to hell are easy; each is in advance of the other, a little further on in guilt; there is no startling transition; and so, by little and little, advance is made, and the neophyte becomes a graduate in the school of crime.
Exo 1:17
Duty of opposing authority when its commands are against God’s Law.
Few lessons are taught in Holy Scripture more plainly than this, that the wrongful commands of legitimate authority are to be disobeyed. “Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants that they should kill David” (1Sa 19:1). But Jonathan positively refused, and rebuked his father: “Wherefore wilt thou sin against innocent blood?” (ib. Exo 1:5). Uzziah would have usurped the priest’s office; but Azariah the priest “withstood him” (2Ch 26:16-21), and God signified his approval by smiting the king with leprosy. Ahasuerus commanded that a “reverence” trenching upon God’s honour should be done to Haman (Est 3:2). Mordecai “transgressed the king’s commandment,” and it is recorded of him to his credit. The “Three Children ‘ disobeyed Nebuchadnezzar when he would have had them “worship the golden image which he had set up” (Dan 3:18) on the plain of Dura. Daniel disobeyed Darius the Mede when required to discontinue his daily prayers. The Apostles disobeyed the Sanhedrim, when forbidden “to preach at all or teach in the name of Jesus” (Act 4:18). God’s law is paramount; and no human authority may require anything to be done which it forbids, or anything to be left undone which it commands. The argument is unanswerable: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (ib. verse 19). So the midwives, because they “feared God,” disobeyed the king. No doubt the lesson is to be applied with caution. We are not to be always flying in the face of authority, and claiming it as a merit. More especially, in States calling themselves Christian and retaining even partially a Christian character, opposition to the law is a serious matter, and, if resorted to, should only be resorted to under a clear and distinct conviction that the Divine law and the human are in absolute opposition. “Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.” If we are not sure of the Divine obligation we must accept the human one. Still, as the good man struggling against adversity is admitted to be one of the noblest of sights, so there is nothing grander, nothing finer, nothing more heroic, than the conscientious resistance of religious persons to the wicked and tyrannical commands of men, whether they be kings, or judges, or mobs. Daniel refusing to obey Darius, Peter and John rejecting the orders of the Sanhedrim, Socrates declining to take part in the arrests of the Thirty, the Seven Bishops refusing to read the proclamation of King James If; are among the most admirable and inspiriting facts of history. The men who rightfully resist authority are “the salt of the earth.” They save the world from a rapid and complete corruption. The remembrance of their acts continues, and is a warning to authorities, preventing hundreds of iniquitous laws and orders, which would otherwise have been enjoined and enacted. Their example is an undying one, and encourages others on fitting occasion to do the like. All honour then to the noble band, who, when the crisis came, have “obeyed God rather than man,” and taken their chance of the consequences! Not that the final consequences to themselves can be doubtful. “But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, blessed are ye!” 1Pe 3:14). In this life, the consequence may be success, severe punishment, or occasionally) neglect and oblivion. But in the world to come there wilt be a reward for rightful resistance undoubtedly. “God made the midwives houses.” For all whom a tyrannical authority makes to suffer because they fear and obey him, he will reserve in his own house “mansions” where they will enjoy bliss eternal.
Exo 1:18-21
God’s acceptance of an imperfect obedience.
The midwives had not the courage of their convictions. They did not speak out boldly,, like Daniel, and the “Three Children,” and the Apostles. They did not say, “Be it known unto thee, O king, that we fear God, and will not do this thing.” They cast about for an excuse, which should absolve them of the crime of disobedience, and so perhaps save them from punishment, and they found one which was no doubt partially true, but which by a suppressio veri was a suggestio falsi. Some have exonerated them from all blame under the circumstances; but though the circumstances may extenuate, they do not justify their conduct. It was a fault, but (especially if they were heathens) a venial fault. And it was perhaps repented of. At any rate God condoned it. He was not “extreme to mark what was done amiss.” He accepted their good deeds and their reverent fear of him, though it was not accompanied by high courage and a heroic love of truth; that is to say, he, accepted an imperfect obedience. And this is what he does in all cases. No man but One has rendered an obedience that was perfect. “All we, the rest, offend in many things; and if we say that we have no sin, deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” Well for us that God, for his Son’s sake, and through his atonement on the cross, can condone our offences, and despite our many misdeeds reward our acts of faithfulness! (See Mat 6:4; Mat 10:42; Mat 16:27; Luk 6:35; 1Co 3:14; etc.)
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Exo 1:15-22
A king’s edicts.
I. THE COMMAND TO THE MIDWIVES TO DESTROY THE MALES (Exo 1:16). This was a further stage in the persecution of the Hebrews. Happily the command was not obeyed. There is a limit even to the power of kings. Stronger than kings is
1. The power of religion. “The midwives feared God” (Exo 1:17).
2. The force of patriotism. They were “Hebrew midwives” (Exo 1:15), and would not, even at the king’s bidding, be murderers of their race.
3. The instincts of humanity. These came in to thwart both this and the next expedient for destroying the children.
4. The cunning of evasion. It is hopeless to attempt to force laws upon a people determined not to obey them. The midwives had only to stay away, and let the Hebrew women help themselves, to reduce the, king’s decree to a dead letter. And this was probably what they did (Exo 1:19). The result shows how much better it is, even at some risk, to obey God than to obey man. The midwives
1. Lost nothing.
2. Retained a good conscience.
3. Were signally honoured and rewarded: God made them houses (Exo 1:21). Kindness shown to God’s people never fails of its reward.
II. THE COMMAND TO THE PEOPLE TO CAST THE MALES INTO THE RIVER (Exo 1:22). He must indeed have been a foolish king, if he thought to secure obedience to so inhuman a decree. Parents would not obey it. The work was of a kind which would soon grow hateful even to those who might at first be willing to do it for reward. The hearts of the most abandoned ere long sicken at murder. Public sympathy does not appear to have gone with the edict, and the number of males at the Exodus makes it certain that it was not long in operation. Its chief fruit was one little contemplated by the tyrantthe salvation and courtly upbringing of Moses. Learn
1. How one cruelty leads to another, and increasingly hardens the heart. It is told of Robespierre that when judge at Arras, half-a-dozen years before he took his place in the popular mind of France and Europe as one of the bloodiest monsters of myth or history, he resigned his post in a fit of remorse after condemning a criminal to be executed. “He is a criminal, no doubt,” he kept groaning to his sister, “a criminal no doubt; but to put a man to death!” (Morley).
2. The impotence of human devices.
3. The certainty of the Church surviving under the worst that man can do against it,. The more Pharaoh persecuted, the more the people multiplied and grew (Exo 1:12, Exo 1:20).J.O.
Exo 1:8-22
The policy of Pharaoh.
I. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY. This is indicated in Exo 1:9, Exo 1:10. It was a policy of selfish fear, proceeding upon an unconcealed regard for the supremacy of Egypt. Whatever interfered with that supremacy was to be, if possible, swept completely out of the way. Pharaoh was dealing, not with the necessities of the present, but with the possibilities of the future. He made no pretence that Israel deserved to be dealt with in this merciless fashion. There was no attempt to cloak the cruelties of the tyrant under the aspect of needful severity against evil-doers. The fear of Pharaoh is seen in the very language he employs. It was not true as yet that the Israelites were more and mightier than the Egyptians: but Pharaoh feels that such a state of things is not improbable, and may not be remote. Something has already happened very different from what might have been expected. Who was to suppose that a handful of people from Canaan, instead of blending with the bulk of Egypt, would keep persistently separate and increase with such alarming rapidity? Seeing that such unexpected things have already happened, what may not be feared in the future? Who knows what allies Israel may ultimately find, and what escape it may achieve? Thus from this attitude and utterance of Pharaoh we learn
1. Not to make our safety and our strength to consist in an unscrupulous weakening of others. The true strength, ever becoming more and more sufficient, is to be gained within ourselves. Pharaoh would have done more for his own safety and the safety of his people by putting away idolatry, injustice, and oppression, than by all his frantic attempts to destroy Israel. It is a sad business, if we must hold our chief possessions at the expense of others. If my gain is the loss or suffering of some one else, then by this very fact the gain is condemned, and however large and grateful it may be at present, it will end in the worst of all loss. Surely the luxuries of the few would become utterly nauseous and abhorrent, if it were only considered how often they depend on the privation and degradation of the many. Pharaoh’s kingdom deserved to perish, and so deserve all kingdoms and all exalted stations of individuals, if their continuance can only be secured by turning all possible enemies into spiritless and emasculated slaves.
2. Not to set our affections on such things as lie at the mercy of others. Pharaoh had to be incessantly watching the foundations of his vast and imposing kingdom. Other nations only saw the superstructure’ from a distance, and might be excused for concluding that the magnificence rested upon a solid base. But we may well believe that Pharaoh himself lived a life of incessant anxiety. The apprehensions which he here expresses must have been a fair sample of those continually passing through his mind. The world can give great possessions and many opportunities for carnal pleasure; but security, undisturbed enjoyment of the possession, it cannot give.
II. THE WORKING OUT OF THE POLICY. The thing aimed at was to keep the numbers of Israel within what were deemed safe bounds; and to this end Pharaoh began by trying to crush the spirits of the people. He judgedand perhaps not unwisely, according to the wisdom of this worldthat a race oppressed as he proposed to oppress Israel would assuredly not increase to any dangerous extent. If only the rate of increase in Israel did not gain on the rate of increase in Egypt, then all would be safe. Pharaoh firmly believed that if only Egypt could keep more numerous than Israel, Egypt would be perfectly secure. Therefore he put these people into a state of bondage and oppression ever becoming more rigorous. Notice that he had peculiar advantages, from his point of view, in making this course of treatment successful. The Israelites had hitherto lived a free, wandering, pastoral life (Gen 47:3-6), and now they were cooped-up under merciless taskmasters and set to hard manual toil. If any human policy had success in it, success seemed to be in this policy of Pharaoh. Nevertheless it utterly failed, from Pharaoh’s point of view, for, whatever depressing effect it had on the spirits of the Israelites, there was no diminution in their numbers. The extraordinary and alarming increase still went on. The more the taskmasters did to hinder Israel, the more, in this particular matter of the numerical increase, it seemed to prosper. It was all very perplexing and unaccountable, but at last Pharaoh recognises the failure, even while he cannot explain it, and proceeds to a more direct method of action, which surely cannot fail in a perfectly efficacious result. He commands the men-children of Israel to be slain from the womb. But here he fails even in a more conspicuous and humiliating way than before. He was a despot, accustomed to have others go when he said “Go,” and come when he said “Come” Accordingly, when he commanded men to become the agents of his harsh designs, he found obedient servants in plenty, and probably many who bettered his instructions. But now he turns to womenweak, despised women, who were reckoned to obey in the most obsequious mannerand he finds that they will not obey at all. It was an easy thing to do, if it had only been in their hearts to do it; for what is easier than to take away the breath of a new-born infant? They do not openly refuse; they even pretend compliance; but for all that they secretly disobey and effectively thwart Pharaoh’s purpose. When we find others readily join with us in our evil purposes, then God interferes to disappoint both us and them; but we cannot always reckon even on the support of others. Notice lastly, that in carrying out this policy of defence against Israel, Pharaoh never seems to have thought of the one course which might have given him perfect safety. He might have expelled Israel altogether out of his coasts. But, so far from deeming this desirable, it was one of the very things he wished to guard against. Israel was a continual source of alarm and annoyance, a people beyond management, an insoluble problem; but it never occurred to him that Egypt would be better with them away. It would have had a very bad look to send them out of the land; it would have been a confession of inability and perplexity which those proud lips, so used to the privileged utterances of despotism, could not bring themselves to frame.
III. THE TOTAL RESULT OF THE POLICY. Though it failed in attaining the particular end which it had in view, it did not fail altogether; nay, it rather succeeded, and that with a most complete success, seeing that in doing so it effectually served the purpose of God. Pharaoh failed as dealing with the children of Israel. He called them the children of Israel, but in profound ignorance of all that this description involved. He did not know that Israel was the son of him who was born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, contrary to all expectation and entirely of promise. But Pharaoh succeeded in a way he did not anticipate, in so far as he was dealing with the posterity of Jacob, the heirs of human infirmity. They did become, in the course of time, slaves in spirit as well as in body, personally so undeserving of freedom that when they had received it, they wished almost immediately to go back to the creature comforts of Egypt like a dog to its vomit, or a sow to her wallowing in the mire. Hence we see that God served himself, alike by Pharaoh’s failure and Pharaoh’s success. Pharaoh’s failure showed how really and powerfully God was present with his people. It was another instance of the treasure being in an earthen vessel that the excellency of the power might be of God and not of men. And Pharaoh by his very success in making the iron to enter into the soul of Israel, was unconsciously working a way to make the stay of Israel in Egypt as full a type as possible of the tyrannous bondage of sin. As Egypt presented its pleasant side at first, so does sin. For a considerable time Egypt looked better than Canaan. There had been corn in Egypt; there had been a land of Goshen; there had been a reflected honour and comfort from the relation of the children of Israel to the all-powerful Joseph. But Joseph
The crime was now looked in the face, but it was so arranged that. it might be done secretly.
3. When this failed, then public proclamation was made that the murder should be deliberately and openly done (22). No man steps at first into shameless commission of sin. Every sin is a deadening of the moral sense and a deepening of shame.
II. THOSE WHO REFUSE TO AID IN PHARAOH‘S CRIME FIND BLESSING.
1. The refusal of the midwives was service to God.
(1) It prevented secret murder.
(2) It rebuked Pharaoh’s sin.
2. Their refusal was justified because it sprang from obedience to a higher authority: “they feared God.“ Disobedience to human law must have a higher sanction than a factious spirit.
3. God gave them inheritance among his people. In that dread of sin and heroism for the right they were fit allies for God’s people. Those who separate themselves from evil God will lead into the light.
III. THOSE WHO AID BRING JUDGMENT UPON THEMSELVES. The king appeals to his people and they make his crime their own. But Egypt’s sin is set at last in the light of Egypt’s desolation. Obedience to unjust laws will not protect us from God’s just judgment. The wrong decreed by authority becomes by obedience a nation’s crime.U.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Exo 1:15. And the king of Egypt, &c. Pharaoh finding, by the experience of at least ten years, that neither the hardships he laid upon the Hebrews, nor all the cruelties which his officers and people used towards them, could prevent their multiplying, he devised another more cruel scheme, and sent for two of the principal Hebrew midwives, to enjoin them the execution of it. Though, Moses mentions but two midwives, yet we must not suppose that they could suffice to such a vast number of women. It is therefore most probable that these two were the chief, who had the charge and direction of the rest. That there was such a superiority among midwives appears probable, at least, from what Plutarch tells us, that among the Grecians there were some to whom the care of this business was committed; and that public schools were kept for that purpose.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Reader! This subject considered spiritually is very interesting. The enemy would destroy as soon as born everyone of the spiritual seed of Christ, as Herod thought to have done Christ himself. Mat 2:16 ; Rev 12:4-5 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
IV
BIRTH AND PREPARATION OF MOSES
Exo 1:15-2:22
We come now to a resumption of our study of the book of Exodus. The last chapter closed while we were considering that great state problem: What the dominant people of a nation should do with an entirely distinct people in their boundaries is always a critical question to deal with, and it is always best to deal with it in righteousness.
The expedients to which Pharaoh resorted: (1) The enslavement of the people; (2) Two different methods to bring about the destruction of the male children as they were born. Both failed; they continued to multiply.
Now we come to the greatest man (his impress on the world is ineffaceable) the greatest man unless, perhaps, we except Abraham, in Jewish history, Moses, a marvelous man. We ought very carefully to study this man’s life, which is divided into three periods of forty years each, exactly: (1) From his birth up to forty years of age, when he made his great decision that he would not be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, including his birth, early life, education, and his deeds while he was a part of the court of Pharaoh; (2) The period of retirement, forty years in Midian; (3) The forty years extending from God’s call in the burning bush until his death. In that last period comes most of the book of Exodus, all of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Psa 90 and all the other things that he did. This is the period of his literary activity and his great deeds.
Moses was of the tribe of Levi. Exodus states it thus: “And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.” That was during the time of the law that
every male child should be cast into the river. That injunction rested upon every Egyptian and upon all Jewish parents. This last law came into effect between the birth of Aaron and the birth of Moses. This family had two children before this law went into effect, Miriam the oldest, and Aaron, who was three years older than Moses. When Moses was born three terms were used to describe the child, one in Exo 2 , one in Act 7 , and one in Hebrews II.
Exo 2 says, “When she saw him that he was a goodly child”
Act 7 says, “When she saw that he was exceeding fair.”
Heb 11 says, “When she saw he was a proper child.” These words describe this baby as the mother saw him. From the traditions that confirm the statements here, he was a remarkable specimen of the physical as well as the mental man. Philo and Josephus go into ecstasies. They say that when Moses as a boy walked along the street the women would come out and stand at the doors to look at him. When he grew to be a man he attracted attention, as a man of presence. There are very few men of presence who, as soon as they are seen, impress you. General Sam Houston would impress you 100 yards off. He had more presence than any other man I ever saw. I was a boy when I first saw him, but I recognized him 100 yards off. Sam Houston could not walk down the street without people coming out to look at him.
The next thing that we learn about Moses, as in Heb 11:25 , is: “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months by his parents, because they saw he was a goodly child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.” Here is a case of simple faith on the part of the parents of the child. They seemed to recognize that in that child was much of the future of their people. Their faith took hold of it, that God meant to do great things through that baby, and that faith was so strong that it cast out fear. The king’s command was his: “Cast this child into the Nile.” They hid him. When they could not hide him longer, and the king said “Cast him into the Nile,” still they were not afraid. They cast him into the Nile, but took precaution to put him where he would not be injured. They constructed a little vessel of bulrushes and put him in that; and their faith did not stop at that, for they stationed their eldest child to watch. They put him right where they knew the king’s daughter came down to bathe. Someone has said, “How could she dare to bathe in the Nile on account of crocodiles?” There were no crocodiles that low down in the Nile. Look at the faith of the parents of that child: that God meant great things for that child and, through him, for his people; that the king’s command was not going to interfere with God’s purpose; their faith taking steps for his preservation, and their steps were to induce a member of the royal family to foster the future deliverer of the nation.
The next thing is to know what opportunity the child’s parents had to make a religious impression on his mind. They arranged it so that the mother of the child should nurse him. She had the boy, until he was weaned, under her exclusive control. You let a mother have faith about a child and have complete charge of him until he is weaned, and she will make a great many religious impressions upon his mind. It is not to be supposed, then, that all connection between her and the child was broken off. We do not know that Moses ever, for one moment, supposed himself to be an Egyptian, and never for one moment was he, in heart, identified with the Egyptians; so that evidently in that early period of his life, deep religious impressions were made upon his mind.
The next step was in regard to his name. Pharaoh’s daughter called him “Moses,” saying, “Because I drew him out of the water.” An examination question will be: Give the derivation of the name of Moses. And you need not bother your mind with critical statements about some other origin of the name. The Bible says that this is the true origin; Josephus says it is; and it can be fairly deduced from the name itself.
The next statement about him is his education. Act 7 comes in here: “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.” Now, if you have given attention to what the education of a royal child in Egypt signified, you have some conception of the preparation in this man’s life. We think it is awful to have to go to college for four years. This man’s preparation extended over eighty years, for forty years’ work. I repeat to you again, that only prepared men ever do great things. It is simply impossible for unprepared men to do really great things. Shakespeare says that some men have greatness thrust upon them, but he means a very short-lived greatness, one that soon vanishes. Now, this record further states that he was mighty in words and in deeds. Evidently this refers to military matters. In Egypt great men were utilized in the priesthood or in bureaucracies. The king was an autocrat; arid all things were managed by bureaus, such as the bureau of agriculture, government of provinces, etc. Or he could enter the military life. As the royal family were especially devoted to military affairs, it is very probable, as Josephus says, that Moses commanded an expedition against the Ethiopians in a great war, and won a signal triumph.
This brings the boy up to forty years. Let us see what the Scripture says about that. Act 7 : “And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren.” Verse 11 says, “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens.” The question now comes up: How did it come into Moses’ heart to make that visit of inspection to his brethren? The only way it could occur to him is by considering this passage in Hebrews II (which it seems to me is the most remarkable statement in the Bible): “By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked unto the recompense of reward.”
Now faith rests on some word of God presented: “Faith comes by hearing.” What do you suppose was the word of God to Moses? We infer what it was by a statement in Act 7 , where Stephen says that when he intervened between two of the Hebrews who were quarrelling, he supposed that they would understand that God was to deliver them through him. He understood it, and supposed that they would understand. So that when he was forty years old evidently a communication was made to him from God to this effect: “You are to deliver this people Israel.” Now he had faith. Therefore, he had to make a decision. He came to where the roads forked.
I remember when I first preached a sermon on this text. I was a young preacher. The town of Bryan was just being built. The railroad had just reached there. They invited me to preach, and I preached on this subject: “The Choice of Moses.” I have the sermon now. It was published. I drew a picture of a man forty years old, not a child. I commenced by saying, “It is the custom of infidels to claim that religion is for weak-minded women and for children. Here was not a weak-minded person but a mature, strong man, the best educated man of his age, the brightest man whose power was unquestioned; and this man came to the forks of the road. When he looked down the left-hand road, what could he see? (1) The position of a prince, the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; (2) The pleasure of sin; (3) The treasures of that position, viz.: honor, pleasure, treasure, not his to be had by working for them, but his already, in his possession. Now, what induced him to discount that? First, these pleasures were those of sin, and these treasures were those of evil. He knew how they had been gotten by rapacious wars. So the character of the honor, the pleasure, and the treasure dispounted them. What else discounted them? ‘For a season.’ They are transient. The honor, the pleasure, and the treasure all had written over them: ‘Passing away.’ What other thought? The recompense of the reward, that is, The Outcome. Pleasure is sweet; treasure is desirable; honor is gratifying; but if these are bad in character, transitory in their nature, and the ultimate reward is evil, a wise man ought not to walk in that road.”
Let us see what he saw on the other side. (1) “Choosing afflictions,” (2) reproach, (3) the giving up of that which he had; renunciation, affliction, and reproach. But now what was the character of these? If he renounced this high position, it was because they were not his people; that if he chose this affliction, it was an affliction with the people of God; and if he was to bear this reproach, it was the reproach of Christ, the coming Messiah. So you see his faith, even then, rested clearly on the coming Messiah. Now the last thing is, the recompense of the reward: (1) Not for a season, but for all time; the other was transitory. There a man forty years old, learned, great, stood and looked down both these roads, first at this picture then at that; instituting a comparison that might be a basis of decision. This path commences bright and gets dark. The other commences dark, but becomes brighter. This fire bordered; that satin. But as a thinker and an intelligent man, he must press the question to its outcome. How does it end? The principle by which he made that decision was faith. He believed in God, in the promises made to his people; that he was the appointed deliverer of his people. He believed that in the end he would have higher honor, sweeter pleasure, richer treasure, and more alluring reward, if he took that right-hand road. It would be very interesting to trace the life of Moses out, to see whether he made a good choice or a bad one. His life was very much afflicted all the time he was trying to deliver his people. He had to die alone, with nobody near him; to be buried, nobody knew where. But the outcome is glorious. He is seen in consultation with Jesus Christ upon the Mount of Transfiguration. He wrote one of the hymns of heaven, which not only made him immortal on earth, but immortal throughout eternity. He wrote the Pentateuch, the basis of all good government, recognized by all of the leading nations of the world as the very foundation of jurisprudence. So that in literature the way he decided was well. In personal reward he did well.
I shall never forget the first sermon I ever heard Major Penn preach. He was then holding a protracted meeting, and a big crowd was out. That old First Church down there in Waco was brimful. He got up and said:
“What is the first thing? The first thing is decision. Now if you are incapable of making a decision, the sexton will open the door and let you out. You need not stay here. But if you have stamina enough in you to reach a decision, a conclusion, when a matter is fairly presented to you, I would like for you to come up and take a front seat, and let me tell you what I want you to decide on. I want you, without any singing or any sermon, just simply on the point, that if a matter is presented to you that you will decide one way or the other, to come up and take a front seat. Are you afraid to come? Are you afraid to pledge yourselves to a decision? If you just simply want to hear me talk and not decide, and do nothing, the sexton will let you out and you can go home. But if you will engage to listen fairly to what I have to say, and then, so help you God, you will decide, come up and take a front seat.”
That was a great talk. It made a tremendous impression. I saw men who had never made a move in their lives just get right up and take a front seat. When he got them up there, about fifty or sixty men and women, he just stood down before them, and talked to them, and showed them the things on which they were to make a decision; and he would not let them get up and leave until they had made a decision one way or the other. Some of them were converted the first day; some as soon as they had started on that pledge that they would reach a conclusion. What is it that Shakespeare says of something that “causes all our resolutions to turn awry and lose the name of action”? What is it that Patrick Henry said when he was trying to get the House of Burgesses to come to a decision: “Shall we gain strength by irresolution and inaction?” What does anybody ever gain by such a course?
Take the first period of the life of Moses, and we find it all preparatory. God had made a revelation to him that he was to deliver the people. He believed that through that people Christ would come. He could not have made that decision without faith. Faith was the great principle that caused his parents to defy the authority of the mighty king and not to have fear of him. Faith conquers the world.
Now we come to the mistake of Moses. Bob Ingersoll talks about the mistakes of Moses, but what he calls mistakes are not mistakes. We do come to a mistake, though. It was not a mistake to turn around and say, “I deliberately, voluntarily, and forever step down and out; I refuse any longer to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; I do not belong there. That is not my crowd; I cast my lot with these afflicted people.” No mistake was there. “Now, I am going to take a look at my people. I’m going to visit them and see for myself how these burdens are put on them.” No mistake is there. Where, then, did Moses make a mistake? He made the kind of mistake that Rebekah and Jacob made. There was a promise of God that the elder should serve the younger; and so they concluded that they would hurry up God’s purpose. And Moses sinned by not waiting for God’s providence to open the way by which he was to deliver the people. He ought not to have shaken the hourglass and tried to make the sand run out faster. When he saw that taskmaster inhumanly and unjustly smiting a Hebrew, he killed him. God did not tell him that that was the way it was to be done. God said, “You must deliver my people,” but he did not tell him to do it on his own judgment. He covered the Egyptian up in the sand; possessed with the same idea that when he saw two of his brethren quarrelling he just stepped up with the air of a deliverer and began to settle that case, and they refused to be settled. In other words, he came without credentials and with only his “say-so,” and with no proof from God that he was to deliver the people. So they rejected him and Pharaoh sought to kill him.
Turn again to Heb 11:27 : “By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.” Now, his going out of Egypt is not generally understood. A great many people say he was a coward and was afraid. He fled by faith, under divine promptings. It was not the fear of the king that drove him into banishment, but he seemed to understand that his preparation was not complete) and there was something he had not yet received, and all through that forty years of the second period of his life “he endured as seeing him who is invisible.”
Now, let us look at that forty-years’ period. He concluded to go where he would be out of the power of Pharaoh and he went to the safest place in the Sinaitic Peninsula, partly occupied by the Midianites and partly by the Amalekites; and he comes like Eliezer and Jacob came, and like everybody else in those desert countries comes, to the well. The well was a great place of meeting, just like a windmill in South Texas. There he sees some girls, as they frequently water the cattle in those countries; and some shepherds were driving them away.
Moses was a soldier and he never stopped to count. The chivalry in which he had been reared in the character of a prince, urged him forward, and he put those herdsmen to flight, and helped the girls water the cattle. That is a fair mark of esteem to young ladies, and always will be. Just let a man show that he is a man, and has a respectful and kind feeling for womanhood, the name of mother, wife and sister, and that he will not see brutal men trample on the rights, privileges and courtesies that are due to the woman, and that man is going to be popular with the women, and justly so. His very bearing announced that he was a kingly man, and according to the rapid manner in which such things are consummated, he married.
This Midianitish sheik to whom he came gave him one of his daughters, Zipporah, who was sometimes called the Ethiopian woman. Therefore, some people say that Moses married a Negress. There is not a word of truth in it. There was a “Cush” in Africa, but there was also a “Cush” in Southern Arabia, not like some who made the Midianites the descendants of Esau. If you will read Gen 25 , you will find that Midian was a descendant of Abraham, through Keturah; that the Midianites and Ishmaelites lived together. They were close akin; one, the descendants of Abraham through Keturah; the other the descendants of Abraham through Hagar. After all, that marriage of Moses was not a good marriage. That wife never sympathized with the great work that God had given him to do, and she “cut up” much when he circumcised the first child which Moses weakly allowed her to govern. So the second child was not circumcised; and it almost cost him his life, as we shall soon learn. There is not a line in the Bible which shows that that woman stood up to her husband in any godly thing which he attempted to do. But he stayed there and in that forty years he got an education of incalculable value.
The sublimity of the great mountain scenery, the solitude of those desert plains, the silent communing with God under a brilliant galaxy of stars that shine brighter there than perhaps in any other portion of the world; there he meditated; there he came in touch with the people of the book of Job. There I think he wrote that book of Job, which I think is the first book of the Bible written, suggesting the afflictions of his people unjustly being ground to powder, harmonizing with the thoughts of the book of Job, viz.: afflictions sent upon the righteous through no fault of theirs. Job was a contemporary of Moses. It was the easiest thing in the world for him to get in touch with all the history. There he studies the ways of getting through that wilderness, and a man needs a guide) even now, through that country. He learned all about the water courses, and the proper stopping places; how to endure the desert life for forty years; forty years of the greatest displays of divine power that the world has ever witnessed.
Now, in this chapter we can go no further. That forty years is ended, and we will next take up the beginning of the last forty years of the life of Moses, when God comes to him and says) “I told you at first that you were to deliver this people. The time has come. I will show you how to do it.”
QUESTIONS
1. Derivation of the word “Moses”?
2. Give names of his tribe, parents, brother, and sister.
3. What oppressive Egyptian law was in force at his birth?
4. What three passages of Scripture describe his physical appearance at birth, and what traditions of his presence and beauty of person?
5. How did the faith of his parents in three distinct particulars save the child from the Egyptian law?
6. What opportunities had his parents to preoccupy his mind with the faith of his father, and the evidence of their success?
7. What of the Old Testament material for a life of Moses?
8. Cite the special New Testament Scriptures throwing light on his life.
9. Into what three equal periods was his life divided?
10. How much of his 120 years was devoted to preparation, compare this with the period of preparation in the case of John the Baptist, and of our Lord, and the bearing of these facts on the time, labor and cost we should devote to the preparation for our life’s work?
11. What are the constituent elements of his education in this long preparation-? Ans. His home training fixing character and faith; Egyptian education of a prince; service in official positions in Egypt; forty years of retirement and meditation.
12. In what did “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” consist? (Have you read Tom Moore’s Epicwean? ) Ans. The Egyptian learning was very great in mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, agriculture, architecture, hieroglyphics and symbols, government, economics, sanitation, embalming, war, diplomacy etc. The priestly ritual and theology was extensive, mystical, burdensome, and most of it profitless.
13. How did retirement and meditation in Midian for so long & time prove helpful to his character and work in the active period of his life, and what is the great defect of modern preparation.
14. What New Testament apostle sought retirement, and for how long, in this very region, before commencing active work? What evidences of its helpfulness to him?
15. At what age did he make his great decision?
16. What New Testament passage indicates that a previous revelation from God as to his future work influenced this decision?
17. Cite precisely the New Testament statement of this choice.
18. According to this statement, by what principle or grace was the choice made?
19. Following the lecture, analyze this New Testament passage as if for a sermon outline (see also the author’s sermon on “Choice of Moses”).
20. What the literary productions of Moses and their importance, and show that, so far as literary fame is concerned, the “recompense of the reward” to which he looked was greater and more enduring than could have come from resting in the “learning of the Egyptians.” Answer: (1) The Pentateuch; (2) Psa 90 ; and probably the book of Job. From this psalm is a song which is, and will be sung in heaven.
21. Wherein did Moses make a mistake in his first effort to be a deliverer? Answer: (1) As to time; the predicted time of deliverance had not come; (2) as to method deliverance was not to be by the sword; (3) as to readiness on hia own part, Israel’s part and Pharaoh’s part.
22. Cite New Testament passage showing that a motive mightier than fear of Pharaoh, as set forth in Exo 2:14-15 , influenced his voluntary exile.
23. What were the ties of kindred between Israelites, Ishmaelites and Midianites?
24. Locate Midian and show its touch with the land of Job.
25. What are the arguments tending to prove that Moses in Midian wrote the book of Job as the first Bible book written? Answers: (1) As Midian, where Moses lived forty years, touched Job’s country, as there was much intercommunication, as both were occupied by Semite population, Moses had exceptional opportunity to learn of Job. (2) All the internal evidence shows that Job lived in patriarchal times, anywhere between Abraham and Moses, and all the idioms of speech in the book show that the author lived near the times of the scenes described. No late author could have so projected his style so far back. (3) The correspondences between the Pentateuch and the book of Job are abundant and marvelous. (4) The man who wrote the song of deliverance at the Red Sea and the matchless poems at the close of Deuteronomy 32-33 is just the man to write the poetic drama of Job. (5) The problem of the book of Job, the undeserved afflictions of the righteous, was the very problem of the people of Moses. (6) The profound discussions in the book call for just such learning, wisdom, philosophy, and Oriental fire as Moses alone of his age possessed. (7) The existence and malevolence of a superhuman evil spirit (Job 1-2) alone could account for these afflictions, a being of whom Job himself might be ignorant, but well known to Moses in the power behind the magicians and idolatries of Egypt. (8) The purpose of the book to show, first, the necessity of a written revelation (Job 31:35 ) and, second, the necessity of a Daysman, Mediator, Redeemer (Job 9:33 ) to stand between God and sinful man, both point to a period when there was no written revelation and no clear understanding of the office of the Daysman in the plan of salvation, and the necessity of a manifestation of God, visible, audible, palpable and approachable (Job 3:3-9 ) all indicate a period when there was no Bible, but a desire for one, revealing the Daysman and forecasting his incarnation, and make the presumption strong that Job was the first book of the Bible to be written and such a book could find no author but Moses. (9) The book must have been written by a Jew to obtain a place in the canon of the Scriptures. All the conditions meet in Moses and in him alone of all men.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Exo 1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one [was] Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
Ver. 15. To the Hebrew midwives. ] In Egypt and Greece the midwives of old had their schools; and some of them were great writers. I know not whether the priests were then so officious to them as many are now among the Papists; who say they therefore study Albertus Magnus de secrelis mulierum, that they may advise the midwives: but I doubt it is for a worse purpose; to gratify and greaten those abominable lusts wherewith they are scalded. , Rom 1:27
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the king of Egypt. See App-37.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
God Protects Hebrew Babes from Pharaohs Decree
Exo 1:15-22
Egypts second stroke of policy was to begin with the children. Pharaoh and Herod set us an example in turning their attention to young life. There is nothing which so closely and instantly touches national well-being as the treatment of the children.
It is wonderful to notice what unexpected instruments God uses to defeat the purposes of his enemies. Of all people these two women seemed the unlikeliest. It may be that these two women were Egyptians, who had recently learned to fear God; but if so, their conduct was even more remarkable. God, who makes of soft sand a strong barrier against the billows, can restrain mans wrath by the humblest instruments. You may be obscure and weak, but if you fear God He will make use of you, write your name in the book of life and multiply your spiritual children.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Reciprocal: Jos 2:6 – to the roof
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 1:15. The king spake to the Hebrew midwives The two chief of them. They are called Hebrew midwives, probably not because they were themselves Hebrews; for sure Pharaoh could never expect they should be so barbarous to those of their own nation; but because they were generally made use of among the Hebrews, and being Egyptians, he hoped to prevail with them.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 1:15-22 E (Exo 1:20 b J). Attempt to Destroy Male Children.From another source we learn of two more ineffectual measures to restrict population. The two midwives, whose names tradition loved to recall for their heroism (while careless about the Pharaohs name!), were, according to Josephus, Egyptian. Though commentators differ, the tone of the passage confirms that view, which requires the rendering, the midwives of the Hebrew women (lit. those women who help the Hebrew women to bring forth). Humanity and natural religion (they feared God, cf. Gen 20:11; Gen 42:18) outweighed the royal command. The procedure is held by Driver to parallel closely Egyptian usage. The process of delivery is known to be very rapid among Arabian women. This would also be a sign of racial vigour, which would help to account for the supplanting of the Canaanites. The third device of Pharaoh was a command to all the Egyptians to cast all Hebrew boy babies into the Nile. This now leads up effectively to the next paragraph. Observe that both the last two devices imply only a small group of people, and these near the Nile.
Exo 1:21. made them houses: the word house is constantly used for household or family, as in Exo 20:17. This precise phrase is found, of Davids house, in 2Sa 7:11. While involving risks of its own, the strong social consciousness of early times, each person finding his or her completion in the group, was a valuable safeguard against a premature individualism.
Exo 1:22. Insert, with Sam., LXX, etc., to the Hebrews after every son that is born. The rabbis argued from the Heb. text that even Egyptian boys were to be killed.the river: the word used here and in all this Egyptian section is not the word nahar regularly used for other great rivers, but Yeor, apparently derived from an Egyptian word which had come to serve for the Nile in place of the older and more venerable Hapi.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
1:15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one [was] {f} Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
(f) These seem to have been the main of the rest.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Plan B consisted of ordering the Hebrew midwives to kill all the male Hebrew babies at birth. Albriight confirmed that these women’s names were Semitic. [Note: W. F. Albright, "Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.," Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954):233.]
"They were to kill them, of course, secretly, in such a way that the parents and relatives would be unaware of the crime, and would think that the infant had died of natural causes either before or during birth." [Note: Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, p. 12.]
"Infanticide was commonly practiced by the nations of antiquity." [Note: Meyer, p. 20.]
As I mentioned, plan A (Exo 1:9-14) may have been in effect for several years. Because of the chronology of Moses’ life many evangelical commentators felt that the Pharaoh the writer referred to in Exo 1:15-22 was Ahmose’s successor, Amenhotep I (1546-1526 B.C.). More likely he was the man who followed him, Thutmose I (1525-ca. 1512 B.C.).
"Although the biblical term ’Hebrew’ [Exo 1:15] is probably cognate to the similar word ’apiru (found in Egyptian, Babylonian, and Canaanite texts), the latter was applied to a population element that was ethnically diverse and that had in common only a generally inferior social status. The word ’Hebrew’ is almost always used by Gentiles to distinguish Israelites ethnically from other peoples and apparently denotes descent from Eber (Gen 10:24-25; Gen 11:14-17), whose ancestor was Noah’s son Shem (Gen 10:21)." [Note: Youngblood, p. 27.]
The two midwives mentioned by name (Exo 1:15) were probably the chief midwives who were responsible for others under them. [Note: See Watson E. Mills, "Childbearing in Ancient Times," Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):54-56; and Nahum M. Sarna, "Exploring Exodus-The Oppression," Biblical Archaeologist 13:1 (June 1986):77-79.]
Ancient Near Easterners preserved national identity through the males, and it is for this reason that Pharaoh ordered their deaths. In contrast, modern Jews trace their ethnic identity through their mother. The change evidently took place during the Middle Ages. One writer suggested that Pharaoh spared the girls, "perhaps to serve later as harem girls." [Note: Gispen, p. 36.]
The midwives’ fear of God (Exo 1:17; Exo 1:21) led them to disobey Pharaoh’s command to practice genocide. They chose to obey God rather than man since Pharaoh’s order contradicted a fundamental divine command (cf. Gen 1:28; Gen 9:1; Gen 9:7). All life belongs to God, so He is the only person who has the right to take it or to command when others should take it. The midwives’ fear of God resulted in their having reverence for human life. Their explanation of their actions (Exo 1:19) may have been truthful or it may not have been entirely truthful.
"Even though these women lied to Pharaoh (which the Bible, as is often the case, does not stop to specifically condemn at this point), they are praised for their outright refusal to take infant lives." [Note: Kaiser, p. 306.]
God blessed these women with families of their own (Exo 1:21) in spite of their deceit, if they practiced it, because they feared God.
This second plan "miscarried" too.
The intent of plan C was also to do away with the male Hebrew babies (Exo 1:22). However instead of relying on the Hebrew midwives Pharaoh called on all his subjects to throw every Hebrew boy that was born into the Nile River. Since the Egyptians regarded the Nile as a manifestation of deity, perhaps Pharaoh was making obedience to his edict an act of worship for the Egyptians. This plan evidently failed too. The Egyptians do not appear to have cooperated with Pharaoh. Even Pharaoh’s daughter did not obey this command (Exo 2:6-8). This plan, too, may very well have continued in effect for many years.
The Pharaoh Moses referred to in Exo 1:22 was probably Thutmose I. [Note: See Davis, p. 51.]
"The central idea [in this pericope] is that God faithfully fulfills His covenant promises in spite of severe and life-threatening opposition. Even Pharaoh, the most powerful man on earth could do nothing to thwart God’s purpose. In fact, God actually used Pharaoh’s opposition as a means of carrying out His promises." [Note: Gordon H. Johnston, "I Will Multiply Your Seed [Exodus 1]," Exegesis and Exposition 1:1 (Fall 1986):27.]
"It is interesting to note that the author has placed two quite similar narratives on either side of his lengthy treatment of the Exodus and wilderness wanderings. The two narratives are Exodus 1-2, the Egyptian king’s attempt to suppress Israel, and Numbers 22-24, the Moabite king’s attempt to suppress Israel. Both narratives focus on the futility of the nations’ attempts to thwart God’s plan to bless the seed of Abraham . . ." [Note: John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, p. 242.]