EXPOSITION
Some time—say five or six years—having 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 (Exodus 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 (Exodus 1:19). Thus the king's second plan failed as completely as his first—"the people" still "multiplied and waxed very mighty" (Exodus 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 innocents—it 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 Exodus 1:10): the whole nation may well be called upon to aid in carrying it out.
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.
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.
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 Exodus 1:19, highly religious—not 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.
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.
Therefore God did well to the midwives. Literally, "And God did well," etc. (see Exodus 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 death—God 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.
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 war—they 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" (Exodus 2:3, Exodus 2:5; Exodus 7:20, Exodus 7:21; Exodus 8:3, etc.), because one branch only, the Tanitic, was readily accessible. Tanks (Zoan) was situated on it.
HOMILETICS
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 (Numbers 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.
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" (1 Samuel 19:1). But Jonathan positively refused, and rebuked his father: "Wherefore wilt thou sin against innocent blood?" (ib. Exodus 1:5). Uzziah would have usurped the priest's office; but Azariah the priest "withstood him" (2 Chronicles 26:16-14), 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 (Esther 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" (Daniel 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" (Acts 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!" 1 Peter 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.
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 Matthew 6:4; Matthew 10:42; Matthew 16:27; Luke 6:35; 1 Corinthians 3:14; etc.)
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
A king's edicts.
I. THE COMMAND TO THE MIDWIVES TO DESTROY THE MALES (Exodus 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" (Exodus 1:17).
2. The force of patriotism. They were "Hebrew midwives" (Exodus 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 (Exodus 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 (Exodus 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 (Exodus 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 tyrant—the 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 (Exodus 1:12, Exodus 1:20).—J.O.
The policy of Pharaoh.
I. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE POLICY. This is indicated in Exodus 1:9, Exodus 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 judged—and perhaps not unwisely, according to the wisdom of this world—that 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 (Genesis 47:3-1), 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 women—weak, despised women, who were reckoned to obey in the most obsequious manner—and 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.