Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 6:28
And it came to pass on the day [when] the LORD spoke unto Moses in the land of Egypt,
28 30. The stream of the narrative here, after its interruption by v. 13, and the genealogy, vv. 14 27, is resumed, v. 29 recapitulating the beginning and end of God’s words to Moses, vv. 2 and 11, and v. 30 repeating Moses’ objection in v. 12. Ch. Exo 7:1-5 is thus really the sequel, and answer, to Exo 6:12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This and the following verses belong to the next chapter. They mark distinctly the beginning of a subdivision of the narrative.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 28. And it came to pass] Here the seventh chapter should commence, as there is a complete ending of the sixth with Ex 6:27, and the 30th verse of this chapter is intimately connected with the 1st verse of the succeeding.
THE principal subjects in this chapter have been so amply considered in the notes, that little of importance remains to be done. On the nature of a covenant (See Clarke on Ex 6:4.) ample information may be obtained by referring to Ge 6:18, and Ge 15:9-18, which places the reader will do well to consult.
Supposing Moses to have really laboured under some defect in speech, we may consider it as wisely designed to be a sort of counterbalance to his other excellences: at least this is an ordinary procedure of Divine Providence; personal accomplishments are counterbalanced by mental defects, and mental imperfections often by personal accomplishments. Thus the head cannot say to the foot, I have no need of thee. And God does all this in great wisdom, to hide pride from man, and that no flesh may glory in his presence. To be contented with our formation, endowments, and external circumstances, requires not only much submission to the providence of God, but also much of the mind of Christ. On the other hand, should we feel vanity because of some personal or mental accomplishment, we have only to take a view of our whole to find sufficient cause of humiliation; and after all, the meek and gentle spirit only is, in the sight of God, of great price.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt. This verse depends upon the following for the sense of it, which shows what it was the Lord said to Moses in the day he spake to him in Egypt, when he was come thither, which is as follows:
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In Exo 6:28-30 the thread of the history, which was broken off at Exo 6:12, is again resumed. , on the day, i.e., at the time, when God spake. is the construct state before an entire clause, which is governed by it without a relative particle, as in Lev 7:35; 1Sa 25:15 (vid., Ewald, 286 i).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Verses 28-30:
Verses 14-28 appear to be a parenthetical section of genealogy. At this point, the writer resumes the narrative with a recapitulation of the things done and said. Emphasis in these verses is upon the identity and authority of the One who commissioned Moses to this task: Jehovah, God of Israel.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE SECOND MESSAGE TO PHARAOH (resumed).
(28-30) These verses are most closely connected with Exodus 7. They are a recapitulation of main points in Exodus 6, rendered necessary by the long parenthesis (Exo. 6:14-27), and serve to unite Exodus 7 with the previous narrative. They contain no new information.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28-30. These three verses properly belong to the next chapter, which should have commenced with Exo 6:28. The Lord (JEHOVAH) spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt, saying, I am the Lord (JEHOVAH) . This is in distinction from that first revelation in the land of Midian, (chap . 3,) when the Memorial Name was first proclaimed .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
RESUMPTION OF THE NARRATIVE AND RECAPITULATION, Exo 6:28 to Exo 7:7.
The foregoing genealogical digression may be regarded as an expansion of Exo 6:13, giving a brief, clear family history of “that Aaron and Moses” who now undertake this weighty charge. The narrative now returns to the incident of Exo 6:12, and repeats the circumstances under which Moses again plead that he was of uncircumcised lips. In Exo 4:10, he urged this as a reason why he was disqualified to go to his brethren; now he feels it a sore hinderance when bid to go to Pharaoh .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Lord Again Commissions Moses
v. 28. And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt, v. 29. that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, I am the Lord; speak thou unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt, all that I say unto thee. v. 30. And Moses said before the Lord, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Exo 6:28-30
The remainder of this chapter is scarcely more than a recapitulation. The author, or compiler, having interposed his genealogical section, has to take up the narrative from Exo 6:12, where he broke off, and does so by almost repeating the words of Exo 6:10-12. The only important addition is the insertion of the words”I am the Lord” (Exo 6:29), and the only important variation, the substitution of “Speak thou unto Pharaoh all that I say unto thee‘ (ibid.), for “Speak unto Pharaoh that he let the children of Israel go out of his land” (Exo 6:11).
Exo 6:29
I am the Lord. It is not improbable that every revelation made to Moses was authenticated by these initial wordswhich have the force of that initial phrase, so constant in the later prophets”Thus saith the Lord.”
Exo 6:30
All that I say unto thee. To the general command thus expressed, was probably appended the particular injunction of Exo 6:11, not here repeatedSpeak thou unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.” The sacred historians continually abbreviate
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Exo 6:14 28
The genealogy of Moses and Aaron.
Beside its direct interest as setting in an exact light the descent and relationship of the two principal figures in the succeeding historyMoses, the Lawgiver of Israel, and Aaron, the head of the priesthoodthis genealogical register presents us with several points deserving of attention. We are taught by it
I. TO RECOGNISE THE DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY IS THE SELECTION OF ITS INSTRUMENTS.
1. The men selectedMoses and Aaron (Exo 6:26, Exo 6:27). Selection, as implying the previous or foreseen existence of variously qualified objects from which the selection is made is scarcely the fitting term to express the fact we have in view, viz. the preparing and raising up at this particular time and place, and from this particular stock, of a man of the special mould of Moses, with an eye to the accomplishment by him of a certain work. The appearance of great men at particular junctures of history is assuredly not to be attributed to chance. It is a shallow view of the Divine election which regards it as simply availing itself of happy varieties of character spontaneously presenting themselves in the course of natural development; as a workman might choose from a set of ready-made tools those best suited for his purpose. Election, if one may so speak, presides at the making of its object (Isaac, Jacob, David, etc.) as well as uses it when made (see Lange’s ‘Dogmatics’). The question is not simply how, a man of Moses’ gifts and qualifications being given, God should use him in the way he did, but rather, how a man of this spiritual build came at that precise juncture to be there at allbroke out at that point in the genealogical tree and not at another. This is the true problem, and the solution can only be found in the Divine arrangements.
2. The sovereignty of the selection. We cannot but be struck by the almost studious departure in this list from the lines of descent which would imply natural pre-eminence.
(1) Moses is not descended from Reuben and Simeon, the eldest sons of Jacob (Exo 6:14, Exo 6:15). The only purpose, apparently, served by the introduction of these two names in the genealogy is to show that Moses did not spring from them.
(2) Neither did he spring from Judah or Josephthe sons of Jacob who fell heirs to the birthright forfeited by the sin of Reuben (1Ch 5:1, 1Ch 5:2). The genealogy stops, as having attained its end, before it gets their length.
(3) He sprang from Levia tribe originally united with Simeon under a curse (Gen 49:7)yet not from the oldest branch of it, but from Kohath, the second son (Exo 6:16-19).
(4) Moses himself was not the eldest son of Amram, but stood by descent in a secondary relation to Aaron, who was afterwards to occupy so secondary a position in relation to him. What are we taught by these facts, if not the lesson so strongly emphasised in Rom 9:1-33; that mere natural advantages constitute no ground of pre-eminence in the kingdom of God; that the spiritual everywhere rules and controls the natural. Examples may be drawn from every part of Scripture history. Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau; Ephraim, not Manasseh; David, not his elder brothers; etc. The Jehovah attributes of freedom and sovereignty, to which this chapter introduces us, find not their least conspicuous illustration in this section of it.
II. TO TRACE, NOTWITHSTANDING, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY, VARIOUS SPIRITUAL LAWS. The sovereignty of God is degraded whenever it is viewed as mere arbitrariness or caprice, as a liberty of indifference, or as anything else than the perfectly free and self-determined action of an all-wise, all-holy, all-good Will, working at every moment for the accomplishment of wise and good ends. Studied in this light, it will be recognised that it has not only
(1) its inherent laws of operation, but
(2) its self-imposed limitations.
Partial glimpses of some of these laws are here afforded us.
1. The natural, while subordinate to the spiritual, is taken as the basis of it. There is to he recognised a congruity between the instrument and the use to which it is to be put; between the man, in respect of his physical, mental, and moral endowments, and the work for which he is designed. Election works in the natural sphere prior to its being revealed in the spiritual. Moses, for example, was, on his natural side, the product of a long line of causes operating through successive generations for the production of just such a man as he was. He was a descendant of Levi, as truly as any other. Inherited organisation was a fact of quite as capital importance in his case as in the case of any of his contemporaries. It had as much to do with the kind and quality of his manhood. Compare also Patti, separated from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15), and essentially the same man after his conversion as before it. The mould in which he was cast by nature was that which specially fitted him for the work he had to do as an apostle.
2. The purpose of God is wrought out not fatalistically, but in harmony with the laws of human freedom, and through man‘s moral self-determinations. This principle also receives striking illustration in the names of this list. The derivation of Moses from Levi, and not from Reuben or Simeon, has a connection with facts in the moral history of the respective tribes. Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, the progenitors, were all three originally of so wicked a disposition as virtually to undergo their father’s curse. Reuben lost the birthright, and Simeon and Levi were denied an inheritance with their brethren (Gen 49:3-8). The descendants of the two former followed closely in the footsteps of their ancestors, and consequently never recovered themselves. It was different with the tribe of Levi, which by earnest piety and zeal seems to have risen to the rank of moral leadership even in Egypt, and was honoured to give birth to Moses and Aaron. And greater honour still was in reserve for it; for while in its letter “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel”the curse was not repealed, an entirely new turn was given to it by the election of the tribe to the priesthood and service of the sanctuary. The curse was changed into a blessing. Had Reuben and Simeon followed in Levi’s footsteps, who can doubt but that mercy would have been shown to them also?
3. Election flows by preference in the lines of pious descent. Moses and Aaron were the children of pious parents. The names of Moses’ fatherAmram, “the kindred of the lofty one”and of his mothershe “whose glory is Jehovah” (verse 20), testify to the piety of his ancestry. The instruction he received from them in early life, and during the visits he paid to their home, would not be without an important influence upon his character, and he had the benefit of their unceasing prayers. Aaron had even greater home advantages, in being with his parents till character was fully formed. This also is an important fact in its bearing on God’s election of them to special service. The faith and prayers of parents have an important influence on the salvation of their children. By far the larger number of pious men and women in the world have come from pious homes. (See numerous illustrations of this in Dr. Norman MacLeod’s ‘Home School.’) The Church historian, Neander, has noticed in how many cases “pious mothers” had to do with the planting of the seeds of Christianity in the souls of those who afterwards produced great effects as teachers of the Church. He instances Nonna, the mother of Gregory of Nazianzum; Arethusa of Antioch, the mother of Chrysostom; the mother of Theodoret; and Monica, the mother of Augustine. (See the whole passage in ‘Church History,’ vol. 3. sect. 2, 1.)
III. THAT HONOR IN GOD‘S SIGHT IS DETERMINED BY SPIRITUAL CONSIDERATIONS,
1. As regards position. The true centre point of honour in this genealogy is verse 20that which includes the names of Moses and Aaron. It was the spiritual greatness of these men which secured for them this honour.
2. As regards rise and fall, Reuben was “the firstborn of Israel” (verse 14), but he lost through sin the prerogatives of birth. He is eclipsed by Levi, who, through piety, rose from a degraded position to one of honour. Korah, whose name, from considerations of relationship, is honourably prominent in this select list (verses 21-24), subsequently destroyed himself by his rebellion (Num 16:1-50.). His posterity, however (another illustration of the same law), rose to high spiritual honour in the minstrelsy of the temple.
3. As regards relationship. The families of the tribe of Levi, grouped around the names of Moses and Aaron, some in nearer, some in more distant relations, draw honour from the association. The chief prominence is given to the Kohathites, as most nearly related to the sons of Amram. This distinction was subsequently confirmed by the appointment of this family to the charge of the sacred Ark, and of the vessels of the sanctuary (Num 4:4-16). Relationship with the good thus confers honour, and secures privilege. The highest of all examples of this is the honour and privilege conferred through relationship to Christ.J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Exo 6:28. And it came to pass, &c. This is a repetition to connect the history. God will have his work done, and he has ways of constraining the most unwilling heart.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
the LORD (Hebrew. Jehovah. spake. See note on Exo 6:10, and compare note on Exo 3:7.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Pharaoh Stubborn against Israels Release
Exo 6:28-30; Exo 7:1-13
How often we say in a similar tone, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me? Forty years in the wilderness, in absolute solitude, had robbed Moses of the eloquence with which Stephen credits him in earlier life. Like Jeremiah, he felt himself a child and unable to speak.
It is an awful moment when the human will sets itself in antagonism to the divine. If it will not bend, it must break. For once the scion of an imperial race had met his superior. It were better for the potsherd to strive with the potsherds of the earth! But God is not unreasonable. At the outset He endeavored to prove to Pharaoh who and what He was. One of the chief reasons for the plagues, as well as of these miracles, was to establish the fact that the Jehovah of the Hebrews was the great Being who lives behind the whole apparatus of nature.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
CHAPTERS 6:28-7:13 The Renewed Commission and Before Pharaoh Again
1. Renewed commission and renewed hesitation (Exo 6:28-30)
2. Jehovahs instructions (Exo 7:1-9)
3. Before Pharaoh and the sign of the rod (Exo 7:10-13)
Once more Moses received his commission, and again he hesitated on account of his poor speech. After all the gracious words Jehovah had spoken he pleads again his weakness. It shows what the unbelieving heart is. Twice Jehovah said that Moses should be a god. A god to Aaron (Exo 4:16) and a god to Pharaoh (Exo 7:1). He received divine authority and power over Pharaoh, while he was to his spokesman Aaron a god, because the word he uttered to him to communicate to Pharaoh was the word of the Lord. And I will harden Pharaohs heart. This was stated before in Exo 4:21. Eighteen times we read of the hardening of Pharaohs heart. However, different words are used in the Hebrew to show an important distinction. One means to make firm or strong. The other, to make stubborn. These two words show Pharaohs hardening of his own heart and Gods hardening after he continued in his wicked way. After it is five times declared that Pharaoh hardened his heart, then God began His hardening and made Pharaohs heart stubborn. Pharaoh hardened himself, then God hardened him. Pharaoh had his opportunities and as he refused and continued in unbelief, God made him stubborn. God hardens as a judicial act because man refuses His Word. God never hardens first nor compels a man to be an unbeliever. A solemn warning is contained in this. Thousands harden their hearts now, and ere long apostate Christendom will be hardened by God without remedy (2Th 2:1-17).
Moses age was 80 years and Aarons 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh. They are before the monarch to show a miracle. Moses did not use his rod as before the elders of Israel , but it was Aarons rod which was cast down and became a serpent. There is likewise another word used for serpent. In Exo 4:3, it is nachash, the same word as in Gen 3:1-24. But the word used in Exo 7:1-25 is thanin, which the Septuagint translates dragon. This does not show that there were two different records, but that the two events have a different significance. Aarons rod, which later blossomed, is the type of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the mighty victor over Satan, sin and death. Aarons rod swallowing the rods of the magicians of Egypt seems to indicate the complete triumph of Jehovah over him who has the power of death.
The question is, was the action of the magicians a real miracle or produced by juggling? Snake charming was carried on in ancient Egypt . However, these magicians were the instruments of Satan, who manifested his power through them. What they did were lying wonders. The names of two of these endued with demoniacal powers are given in 2Ti 3:8, Jannes and Jambres. Such manifestation of demon power is found today in spiritualism and will be fully revealed during the days of Antichrist at the end of this age (2Th 2:9-12). Pharaohs heart was hardened (literal translation) because he wilfully rejected the sign given.