John Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: April 13

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

John Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: April 13

Today is: Thursday, April 18th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)

Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of April: (Show All Months)

The Murrain and Pestilence

Exodus 9

The peculiar nature of the fourth plague, and the intensity of the evil, brought Pharaoh into great perplexity. On the one hand, neither he nor his people could any longer endure this infliction, and on the other, he had no disposition to allow the Israelites to depart. He therefore struck out a compromise, or half-way measure, by which he hoped to surmount the difficulty. He sent for the Hebrew brothers, and told them that they might go and sacrifice to their God, but, that they must do it in the land of Egypt. This, however, Moses most decidedly declined, on the ground that the hatred and even violence of the Egyptians would be excited were they—as must be the case—to offer in sacrifice the very animals that they venerated. This is the usual interpretation of the words of Moses: “Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?” But a very acute and learned writer Note: Hengstenberg in his Egypt and the Books of Moses. has thrown some doubt on this. He argues that the designation “abomination” is not appropriate to the consecrated animals. “This indicates that the animals the Israelites slaughtered were not too good, but too bad for offerings.” To this it may be answered, that the term “abomination” is applied in Scripture to objects of idolatrous worship. Thus in 1Ki_11:5, Milcom is called “the abomination” of the Ammonites, and Chemosh “the abomination” of the Moabites; and in 2Ki_23:13, Ashtoreth is called “the abomination of the Zidonians.” The other objection is of more force. This is, that “the animals which were commonly taken among the Israelites for offerings, were also among the Egyptians not sacred. The only one of the other animals generally considered as sacred, the cow, was also among the Israelites, except in the case of Numbers 19, which is entirely by itself, not offered. The animals most commonly sacrificed, oxen, were also both sacrificed and eaten by the Egyptians.” This author, therefore, considers that the offence of the Israelites would rather be, that they then at least—that is, before the delivery of the law, if not after—omitted the inquiries respecting the cleanness of animals, which was practised with the greatest caution among the Egyptians. Their particularity in this respect astonished the ancient Greeks, who record the matter with wonder. Of oxen, only a red one could be offered, and a single black hair rendered it unclean. They also placed dependence on a multitude of marks besides this; the tongue, the tail, were accurately examined, etc. Each victim was, after a prescribed examination in confirmation of its fitness to be sealed on the horns, and to offer an unsealed ox, was a crime punished with death.

Although we allow due weight to these considerations, it may be asked whether the Egyptians, whatever were their own practice, were likely to trouble themselves with the consideration whether the animals which the Israelites offered to a God avowedly unknown to them, were clean or not. Besides, although the cow only was universally sacred, oxen, and sheep, and goats—animals offered by the Israelites—were sacred in different parts of Egypt, the inhabitants of which could not endure the sacrifice of the animals they venerated; and this was in fact often a matter of serious contention among the Egyptians themselves. Besides, it is not true that oxen were most commonly offered by the Israelites. Before the law, there is no instance of the sacrifice of an ox; and after the law, oxen were only offered on great occasions, and as free-will offerings on high festivals. Sheep and goats were the common sacrifices; and we know that the goat, if not the sheep, was sacred in that part of Egypt in which the court was held. How little the Egyptians would be inclined to tolerate the destruction of the sacred animals within the districts in which they were worshipped, is shown by one of our author’s own quotations from Herodotus, who states that “If any person kill one of these animals intentionally, he expiates his crime by death; if unintentionally, he must pay the fine which the priest imposes. But whoever kills an ibis or a hawk, whether intentionally or not, must die.” Upon the whole, therefore, the more current view of the subject is that with which we must recommend the reader to rest satisfied.

But in connection with the objection urged by Moses for insisting upon his original demand, a question will occur to the reader, which, we are sensible, must for some time have been present to his mind. What did Moses mean by asking for permission to take a three days’ journey into the wilderness? Did he intend to return, if the permission were granted? Was not the king justified in suspecting that they never would come back, if this permission were obtained? We must avow that these are hard questions. In the first place, however, we are to recollect that Moses knew—having been so assured by God himself—that the king would not yield to even this reasonable request; and that thus the burden of the refusal would be upon him with all its consequences. But still Moses must have been prepared for the hypothesis of a compliance with the request he made. Was he then insincere in making that request—had he such unavowed intentions as warranted the king^’s suspicions? No doubt he did mean to sacrifice unto the Lord at the distance of three days’ journey. But was that all? Are we to suspect the great leader of Israel of the same kind of suppressio veri as that into which Abraham himself fell when he visited this land. We think not. There appears to us no authority for supposing that any disingenuousness was intended to be practised in the original request. Had the proposal been assented to by Pharaoh, it is to be presumed that Moses would have led the people back again in accordance with the implied engagement. In their retiring together once into the wilderness to sacrifice, a useful precedent would, as an able American writer Note: Dr. Palfrey, in his Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities—a work, from many of the conclusions in which we seriously dissent, but which embodies much original and instructive thought, and much careful research—marred occasionally by imprefect study of oriental geography and eastern usages. We owe much help to this work in the early portion of the present volume. remarks, have been established, and an important step first taken towards ultimate liberation and nationality.

The objection of Moses extorted from the king a reluctant consent to their going into the wilderness, “only,” he stipulated, “ye shall not go very far away.” This seems to render it quite clear that he did suppose they meant to avail themselves of the occasion of making their escape. The stipulation of itself does, however, indicate that the king meant to keep his word; but, as is too commonly the case, when the calamity which wrung this promise from him had ceased, he manifested no readiness in the performance of it.

This brought on the fifth plague, which smote the Egyptians by the loss of their cattle; mortal disease appearing among the flocks and herds, but sparing those of the Israelites. It is said that “all the cattle of Egypt died;” but this was not literally the case, as we find them subsequently still possessed of cattle. The meaning is, that there was death among all the cattle of Egypt—no kind was spared. A slight incident indicates the impression made by this on the king’s mind. Not satisfied with the reports he received as to the exemption of the cattle of the Israelites, he sent competent witnesses to the district they occupied to ascertain the fact. The result must have satisfied him that the hand of God was in this matter—but no permanent good was produced upon his obdurate mind, for he still refused to let Israel go. This persistence against such an accumulation of calls, warnings, and judgments, became at every step a sin of increasing magnitude, and called for increasing severity and solemnity of punishment. The next time, therefore, the plague went home to the persons of the Egyptians themselves, and touched their skin and their flesh, in the form of ulcerous eruptions, from which none escaped. And for a token that it was by the power exerted through them that the plague was sent, Moses and Aaron, in the presence of the king, take the ashes of a furnace in their hand, and fling them wide into the air, declaring that they should “become small dust in all the land of Egypt,”—that is, the pestilence which this sign was intended visibly to connect with the agency of Moses, would be as extensive as if this sign were exhibited throughout the realm, instead of in the royal presence alone. The action is very remarkable, and is not without existing parallel in the East. Mr. Roberts, in his Oriental Illustrations, relates that “when the magicians pronounce an imprecation on an individual, a village, or a country, they take the ashes of a cow’s dung (that is from a common fire), and throw them into the air, saying to the objects of their displeasure—such a sickness, or such a curse, shall surely come upon you.”