EXPOSITION
THE FIRST PLAGUE. The first miracle had been exhibited, and had failed. It had been a mere "sign,'' and in no respect a "judgment." Now the "judgments ' were to begin. God manifests himself again to Moses, and gives him exact directions what he is to do. He is to meet Pharaoh on the banks of the Nile, and to warn him that a plague is coming upon all Egypt on account of his obstinacy; that the waters of the Nile will be turned to blood, so that the ash will die, and the river stink, and the Egyptians loathe to drink of the water of the river (Exodus 7:15-2). Pharaoh not yielding, making no sign, the threat is to be immediately followed by the act. In the sight of Pharaoh and his court, or at any rate of his train of attendants (Exodus 7:20), Aaron is to stretch his rod over the Nile, and the water is at once to become blood, the fish to die, and the river in a short time to become offensive, or, in the simple and direct language of the Bible, to stink. The commands given by God are executed, and the result is as declared beforehand by Moses (Exodus 7:20, Exodus 7:21).
Pharaoh's heart is hardened. Rather, "is hard, is dull." The adjective used is entirely unconnected with the verb of the preceding verse.
In the morning. The expression used both here and again in Exodus:20 seems rather to imply a daily custom of the Pharaoh. It is conjectured; not without reason, that among the recognised duties of the monarch at this time was the offering of a morning sacrifice to the Nile on the banks of the river (Keil and Delitzsch, Kalisch, etc.). Possibly, however, this may not have been the case, and God may have chosen for certain miracles particular days, on which the king was about to proceed to the river in view of some special ceremony connected with the annual inundation. Against he come. Literally, "to meet him." In their hand. When the time came for smiting the waters, the rod was transferred to Aaron's hand (verse 19).
The Lord God … hath sent me unto thee. Rather, "sent me unto thee." The reference is to the original sending (Exodus 5:1). Thou wouldest not hear. Literally, "Thou hast not heard," i.e. up to this time thou hast not obeyed the command given to thee.
In this thou shalt know that I am the Lord. Pharaoh had declared on the occasion specially referred to, "I know not Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go" (Exodus 5:2). He is now told that he shall "know Jehovah" in the coming visitation; he shall know, i.e; that there is a great and truly existent God who controls nature, does as he will even with the Nile, which the Egyptians regarded as a great deity; and can turn, if he see fit, the greatest blessings into curses. Behold, I will smite. God here speaks of the acts of Moses and Aaron as his own acts, and of their hands as his hand, because they were mere instruments through which he worked. The Roman law said: "Qui facit per alium, tacit per se." The waters … shall be turned to blood. Not simply, "shall be of the colour of blood," as Rosenmuller paraphrases, but shall become and be, to all intents and purposes, blood. It is idle to ask whether the water would have answered to all the modern tests, microscopic and other, by which blood is known. The question cannot be answered. An that we are entitled to conclude from the words of the text is, that the water had all the physical appearance the look, taste, smell, texture of blood: and hence, that it was certainly not merely discoloured by the red soil of Abyssinia, nor by cryptegamic plants and infusoria. Water thus changed would neither kill fish, nor "stink," nor be utterly undrinkable.
The fish … shall die. This would increase the greatness of the calamity, for the Egyptians lived to a very large extent upon fish, which was taken in the Nile, in the canals, and the Lake Morris (Herod. 2.149). The river shall stink. As Keil and Delitzsch observe, "this seems to indicate putrefaction." The Egyptians shall loathe to drink. The expression is stronger in Exodus 7:24, where we find that "they could not drink." We may presume that at first, not supposing that the fluid could really be blood, they tried to drink it, took it into their mouths, and possibly swallowed some, but that very soon they found they could not continue to do so.
Say unto Aaron. There is an omission here (and generally throughout the account of the plagues) of the performance by Moses of God's behest. The Samaritan Pentateuch in each case supplies the omission. It has been argued (Kennicott) that the Hebrew narrative has been contracted; but most critics agree that the incomplete form is the early one, and that, in the Samar. version, the original narrative has been expanded. The waters of Egypt … streams … rivers … ponds … pools of water. The waters of Lower Egypt, where this miracle was wrought, consisted of
(1) the various branches of the Nile, natural and artificial, which were seven when Herodotus wrote (Herod. 2.17), whence the Nile was called "septemfluus," or "septemgeminus;"
(2) the canals derived from each branch to fertilise the lands along its banks;
(3) ponds, marshes, and pools, the results of the overflowing of the Nile, or of its percolation through its banks on either side; and
(4) artificial reservoirs, wherein water was stored for use after the inundation was over. The four terms of the text seem applicable to this four-fold division, and "show an accurate knowledge of Egypt" (Cook), and of its water system. The "streams" are the Nile branches; the" rivers correspond to the canals; the "ponds" are the natural accumulations of waters in permanent lakes or in temporary pools and marshes; while the "pools," or "gatherings of waters" (margin), are the reservoirs made by art. Aaron was to stretch out his rod over the Nile, but with the intent to smite all the Egyptian waters, and all the waters would at once be smitten, the streams and the canals and the natural lakes and the reservoirs. The miracle would even extend to private dwell-trigs, and the change would take place throughout all the land of Egypt, not only in respect of the open waters spread over the country, but even in respect of that stored, as was usual, in houses, and contained either in vessels of wood or in vessels of stone. With respect to these, it is to be observed that the Nile water was much improved by keeping, since the sediment subsided; and that tanks, sometimes of wood, sometimes of stone, were usual adjuncts of all the better class of houses.
He lifted up the rod. "He" must be understood to mean "Aaron" (see Exodus 7:19); but the writer is too much engrossed with the general run of his narrative to be careful about minutia. All that he wants to impress upon us is, that the rod was used as an instrument for the working of the miracle. He is not thinking of who it was that used it. In the sight of Pharaoh. See the comment on Exodus 7:15. And of his servants. Either "his courtiers generally," or, at any rate, a large troop of attendants.
The fish that was in the river died. It is most natural to understand "all the fish." There was blood, etc. Literally, "and the blood was throughout all the land of Egypt." The exact intention of the phrase is doubtful, since undoubtedly "in numberless instances, the Hebrew terms which imply universality must be understood in a limited sense (Cook). "All the land" may mean no more than "all the Delta."
HOMILETICS
God's punishments appropriate and terrible
(Exodus 7:17-2), There was something peculiarly appropriate in the first judgment falling upon the Nile. The Nile had been made the instrument of destruction to the Israelites by the first tyrannical Pharaoh (probably Seti I.). It had been defiled with the blood of thousands of innocent victims. Crocodiles had in its waters crushed the tender limbs of those helpless infants, and had stained them with a gore that in God's sight could never be forgotten. The king, and the persons who were his instruments, had in so doing polluted their own holy river, transgressed their own law, offered insults to one of the holiest of their own deities. And all for the destruction of God's people. So, now that destruction was coming upon themselves, now that the firstborn were doomed (Exodus 4:23), and the catastrophe of the Red Sea was impending, the appropriate sign, which threatened carnage, was given—the Nile was made to run with blood. The Egyptians had among their traditions one which said that the Nile had once for eleven days flowed with honey. As this supposed miracle indicated a time of peace and prosperity, so the present actual one boded war and destruction. Again, Pharaoh's especial crime at this time was, that he despised God. God therefore caused his own chief deity to be despised. There are indications that, about this period, a special Nile-worship had set in. Hapi, the Nile-god, was identified with Phthah and Ammon—he was declared to stand "alone and self-created"—to be "the Father of all the gods," "the Chief on the waters," "the Creator of all good things," "the Lord of terrors and of choicest joys." "Mortals" were said to "extol him, and the cycle of Gods"—he stood above them all as the One Unseen and Inscrutable Being. "He is not graven in marble," it was said; "he is not beheld; he hath neither ministrants nor offerings; he is not adored in sanctuaries; his abode is not known; no shrine of his is found with painted figures; there is no building that can contain him;" and again, "unknown is his name in heaven; he doth not manifest his forms; vain are all representations." Menephthah was a special devotee of Hapi. Nothing could have seemed to him more terrible and shocking, than the conversion of his pure, clean, refreshing, life-giving, god-like stream, into a mass of revolting putridity. And on the people the judgment was still more terrible. Under ordinary circumstances, the whole nation depended on the Nile for its water supply. There were no streams in the country other than the Nile branches, no brooks, no rills, no springs or fountains. The sudden conversion of all the readily accessible water—even such as was stored in houses—into blood, was sickening, horrible, tremendous. Scarcely could any severer punishment of the people have been devised. If a partial remedy had not been found (Exodus 7:24), it would have been impossible for them to endure through the "seven days" (Exodus 7:25). So fearful are the judgments of God upon those who offend him I
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
The Nile turned into blood.
The first of the series of plagues which fell on Egypt was of a truly terrific character. At the stretching out of the red of Aaron, the broad, swift-flowing current of. the rising Nile suddenly assumed the hue and qualities of blood. The stroke fell also on the reservoirs, canals, and ponds. Whatever connection may be traced between this plague and natural phenomena (see Hengstenberg) it is plain that it stood on an entirely different footing from changes produced under purely natural conditions.
1. The water was rendered wholly unfit for use.
2. It became deadly in its properties (Exodus 7:18).
3. The stroke was instantaneous.
4. It was pre-announced.
5. It descended on the river at the summons of Moses and Aaron.
6. It lasted exactly seven days (Exodus 7:25).
An event of this kind was palpably of supernatural origin. Contrast Moses with Christ, the one beginning the series of wonders by turning the river into blood; the other, in his first miracle, turning the water into wine (John 2:1-43). The contrast of judgment and mercy, of law and Gospel. Consider—
I. THE DEMAND RENEWED WITH THE ACCOMPANIMENT OF THREAT (Exodus 7:16-2).
1. The demand was that which Pharaoh had hitherto resisted. It was a demand righteous and reasonable in itself—"Let my people go," etc. It had come to him, moreover, as the command of Jehovah, and proof had been given him that such was its character. Still he had resisted it. This, however, did not dispose of the demand, which now confronts him again.
2. The demand which Pharaoh would not freely grant, he is now to be compelled to grant. If he will not bow to reason, to persuasion, to evidence, he must bow to power. An unprecedented calamity would overtake his land: "In this shalt thou know that I am the Lord; behold, I will smite with the rod," etc. (Exodus 7:17). Note—
(1) Reasonable means are exhausted with the sinner before compulsion is resorted to. God is unwilling to proceed to extremities.
(2) Nevertheless, if gentler methods fail, means will be used which will compel submission. "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God" (Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10, Philippians 2:11).
(3) Excuses are not admitted for wilful unbelief. Pharaoh would probably have pleaded as a ground for his refusal, that he did not believe that the command in question proceeded from Jehovah. No such plea will be admitted in the court of heaven. Every allowance will be made for involuntary ignorance, but none for wilful unbelief. What the sinner is asked to do is righteous and reasonable in itself; is made known to him as God's will; and is evidenced to be such by many infallible proofs. Refusal to acknowledge the sufficiency of this evidence does not exculpate from the guilt of disobedience. The question is not—Does he, or will he, admit its sufficiency, but is it sufficient? Not, Does it convince him? but, Ought it to convince him? Our errors, follies, and mistakes will not hinder the Almighty from executing his purposes. If we stand in the way of them, and will not bend, we must be crushed.
II. THE PLAGUE AS A SIGN TO EGYPT. The smiting of the Nile was—
1. A proof of the power of Jehovah (Exodus 7:17). It showed him to be an actually existing Being, demonstrated his supremacy in nature, and made manifest his determination to punish resistance to his will.
2. A blow at Egyptian idolatry. It turned the river Nile, which itself was worshipped as a divinity, into an object of loathsomeness and source of death to its worshippers. They were the chief gods of Egypt, too, who were supposed to be embodied in the river. How clear the proof of the vanity of the idols, and of the unchallengeable superiority of Jehovah! Yet we do net learn that one idol the less was worshipped in Egypt as the result of it.
3. A warning of worse evil to come. The Nile was in a sense symbolical of Egypt, of whose prosperity it was the source. The turning of this river into blood was in fact a prophecy or threat of utter ruin to the state. The succeeding plagues are merely the unfolding of the threat contained in this one.
4. The removal of the plague at the end of seven days betokened the unwillingness of God to proceed to extremities. It is very noticeable that the plague was removed unasked, and while Pharaoh was still hardening his heart. So long-suffering is God that he will try all means with sinners before finally giving them up. The lessons for ourselves from this plague are these—
(1) The certainty of God's threatenings being executed.
(2) The terrible punishments in reserve for disobedience.
(3) The ease with which God can smite a nation, and bring it to the point of ruin. The smiting of the Erie meant the immediate paralysis of all industry, commerce, and agriculture throughout the land of Egypt, while, had the plague lasted a few days longer, the result would have been the death of the whole population. We call this "miracle," but miracle is only the coming forth into visibility of the hand which is at all times working in the phenomena of nature, and in the affairs of history. By famine, by pestilence, by blight of crops, by clap of war, turning the river of a nation's life into very literal blood, by the simplest natural agencies, if so it pleased him—could Jehovah speedily reduce our national pride, and smite at the fountain-heads the sources of our national prosperity. A very sensible proof was given of this—of the readiness with which the trade of a whole country could be paralysed, and great cities reduced in no long period to absolute starvation, by a slight change in natural conditions—in the great snowstorm of January 1881. Had the storm lasted but a week or two longer, the effects would have been as serious to cities like London, and to the country as a whole, as this smiting. of the Nile in Egypt.
(4) God's judgments are anticipative. Judgments in this life forewarn of judgments beyond.
III. THE PUERILE IMITATION OF THE MAGICIANS (Exodus 7:22).
1. The magicians could not remove the plague; they could only with the few drops of water at their command produce a feeble imitation of it. How futile is this as a disproof of God's agency! So it is a pitiable way of disposing of God's judgments to show that something like them can be produced by undivine means. The savant, e.g; may produce in his laboratory an imitation of rain or thunder, and may think that he has thereby disproved God's agency in any infliction he may send upon a land through these instrumentalities; but this is small comfort to the country that is being smitten by them.
2. The attempts of the magicians to refute the pretensions of Moses only resulted in making the supernatural character of the plague more manifest. In the same way, the efforts of sceptics to disprove, e.g; the Divine origin of the religion of the Bible, or of the book itself, only end in making its Divinity more apparent. "The more conclusively you demonstrate to the human reason that that which exists ought not to exist, so much the more do you enhance the miracle of its existence. That must be the most astounding of all facts that still exists notwithstanding the gravest objections to its existence."
IV. THE HARDENING OF PHARAOH (Exodus 7:22, Exodus 7:23). The hardening of Pharaoh here enters on a new phase. It was—
1. Hardening against conviction. Pharaoh must have felt in this case that he was in presence of a true work of God. The puny efforts of his magicians could not possibly impose upon him. But he would not yield. He would not obey conviction.
2. Hardening under punishment. Pharaoh was in the position of one who, being often reproved, hardeneth his neck (Proverbs 29:1). He had risked, even after this last warning, the chances of the threatening turning out to be untrue. Now, to his utter discomfiture, the stroke descends, and his empire is on the point of ruin. Yet he hardened himself in resistance.
3. Hardening which was deliberate. "Pharaoh turned and went into his house, neither did he set his heart to this also" (Exodus 7:23). He had reached a point at which he could only stiffen himself in his determination to resist God, by refusing to think, by deliberately turning away from the light and resolving not to face the question of his duty. The monarch knows his duty, and knows that he knows it, yet. he will not obey.
4. Hardening obstinately persevered in. He held out through all the seven days of the duration of the plague. Hardening of this kind speedily robs the soul of its few remaining sparks of susceptibility to truth.—J.O.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
The first plague: the water turned to blood.
I. THE PLACE WHERE MOSES WAS TO MEET PHARAOH. Moses was not always to be put to it to find his entrance into the palace. God can arrange things so that Pharaoh shall come to meet him. The instructions given to Moses at once call to our minds how Pharaoh's daughter, eighty years before, had come down to the river to find and protect a helpless babe, and how that same babe—having passed through many chequered years, and many strange experiences at the hands both of God and men—has to meet with another Pharaoh. We are not told why Pharaoh went down to the water; it may have been to worship, for the Egyptians held the Nile in pious regard. But as the narrative says nothing on this point, we had better not assume it. It is sufficient to observe that Pharaoh was led down to the stream, to see it, the great benefactor of his land, turned into a curse.
II. THE DISTINCT WARNING GIVEN TO PHARAOH OF WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. This warning is not peculiar to the first plague. Warning is mentioned as having been given along with most of the others, and possibly it was given where it is not mentioned. But it is of course a thing to be specially noted that God did not begin this succession of disasters without due and solemn warning. Not that there was any formal appeal to Pharaoh. It rather seems to be taken for granted that an appeal will be of no use. But even though Pharaoh disregarded, it was a good thing to say beforehand what was about to happen. Moses himself, and Aaron, and all devout Israelites who had eyes to perceive, could thus see God's plan opening out more and more. All information is good that makes us feel how God is working upon an ascertained and settled plan.
III. THE PLAGUE ITSELF, Water is changed to blood. Two of the great elements that belong to life are thus put in sharp contrast. Water is an element scarcely less distributed than the air itself. It is one of those common blessings which are so common that we take them with no manner of doubt that we are perfectly sure of them, come what may. The importance of water is seen by nothing more than by the frequent references to it in Scripture as illustrative of spiritual blessings. There is water to drink; water to cleanse; water to fertilise vegetation. This element God takes, and all at once, over a wide stretch of territory, turns it to blood. Thus we see how he can make mere natural things a blessing or a curse according to his will. Water is a blessing, and blood a blessing, according to circumstances of time and place. There is suffering when blood is where water ought to be; and equally there is suffering if water is where blood ought to be. Here there was great suffering because blood was where water was meant to be. When the people came for water to drink, to cook, to wash, to water plants, they found only blood; and yet that very blood was the same in its composition with the liquid which flowed incessantly through their own bodies. Their health depended on its richness, its purity, and the regularity of its flow. On the other hand, consider the poor man who came to Christ to be cured of the dropsy (Luke 14:2). He had to complain, not that blood was where water ought to be, but that water was where blood ought to be. And here we claim that this miracle is not sufficiently explained by saying that the water was turned into something like blood. We must take it that there was a conversion of the water literally into blood. We are here just at the beginning of a critical and sublime exhibition of signs and wonders. Why, then, needlessly make admissions which will diminish the force of these? Granting the supernatural at all, let us be ready to grant it to the full where the statements of the text require it. The Being who changed a rod to a serpent could change, if need were, the waters of the whole globe into blood. We should be careful not to admit, without sufficient reason, anything to diminish the horrors of this plague. What a poor picture it presents to the imagination to think of streams stained with red earth or microscopic infusoria! How much more impressive in every way—how much more consistent with high conceptions of the anger of Jehovah, and of the punitive aspect of his power—to think of blood, real blood everywhere, "vast rolling streams, florid and high-coloured," and becoming after a while, a stagnating, clotting, putrescent mass. Very fitly does Matthew Henry remark on this plague:—"One of the first miracles Moses wrought was turning water into blood, but one of the first miracles our Lord Jesus wrought was turning water into wine; for the law was given by Moses, and it was a dispensation of death and terror; but grace and truth, which, like wine, make glad the heart, came by Jesus Christ."
IV. THE APPARENTLY SUCCESSFUL RIVALRY OF THE MAGICIANS. They also were able, or seemed to be able, to turn water into blood. There are, indeed, some difficulties in understanding the nature of their action here—whether it was mere trickery and deception, or whether God did allow water, as it passed through their hands, to be changed to blood. An understanding of these points is, however, of secondary importance. The thing of moment is to mark how unimpressed the magicians themselves seem to have been with the terrible spectacle presented to them. It was not for Pharaoh only to take heed to this river of blood; the intimation was for them also. But they clung, as privileged men almost always do cling, to their position and influence. Not only was Pharaoh's kingdom in danger, but their standing as the professed agents of supernatural powers. They went on, vainly contending against this new manifestation of power, though surely in their hearts they must have felt it was destined to prevail And their conduct was made worse by the fact that they were pursuing it in the midst of general suffering.
V. THE INTERVAL TO THE NEXT PLAGUE. What was this interval for? Surely to give Pharaoh time—time to consider the miracle in all its bearings, and get over the rashness and pride which prompted his first thoughts of continued resistance. We know not if, during these seven days, the river slowly returned to its natural state. Perhaps there was no sharp dividing line between the plagues; one may have come on as another faded away. Seven days, then, were given to Pharaoh to change his mind; but it is very hard for a man, even in seven days, to say he has been utterly wrong. And then there is the success of these magicians to keep him astray. Yet what was there in them to give satisfaction? It seemed they could do the same thing which Moses was doing, viz. change water into blood. If only they could have changed blood into water again, then they might have been of some use and comfort to Pharaoh.—Y.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
The water turned into blood.
I. THE PUNISHMENT. There were two elements in it.
1. The deprivation: water, one of the most essential of all God's gifts, was suddenly made useless.
2. The horror. Had all the water of Egypt suddenly disappeared, the punishment had been infinitely less. Instead of water, there was blood and corruption.
3. It was a judgment on Egypt's idolatry. The things we set in God's stead will be made an abomination and a horror to us.
4. It was the revelation of Egypt's guilt; beneath these waters the babes of Israel had sunk in their hopeless struggle with death. The abused gifts of God will be removed, but the horror of their abuse will abide.
I. THE ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT GOD'S AGENCY IN THE CALAMITY. The magicians could increase the plague, and therefore it was not from the hand of God! The same argument is used still to prevent misfortune being considered as a chastisement and warning from God. Men can see in it chance only, or man's hand, not the Lord's.
III. PHARAOH'S DOGGED REFUSAL TO OBEY. He "turned and went into his house" (Exodus 7:23). This would prolong his punishment, but could not conquer God. Instead of bowing to God's word, we may shut ourselves in with our sin, but we only bind judgment upon us, and tempt God to inflict a heavier blow.—U.