26. And Moses said. The word כון, (101) kon, which Moses here uses, has a wide signification; for the Hebrews say of whatever they do not approve, that it is not right ( rectum.) Therefore almost all the interpreters agree in this, that Pharaoh demanded what was by no means equitable, because he would have exposed the Israelites to be stoned by his people. If this opinion be admitted, we must read the passage connectedly, that it was not in accordance with reason, that the Israelites should sacrifice in Egypt in a strange manner, because the novelty would not be tolerated. There are two clauses in the sentence; one, that it was not right for them to offer in Egypt a sacrifice to God, which was abominable to the inhabitants themselves, or to offer a profane sacrifice of the abominations of the heathen; the other, that there was a danger of the Israelites being stoned, if they provoked the Egyptians by a ceremony, which was detestable to them. As to the second clause, there is no doubt that “the abomination of the Egyptians” is taken actively for the sacrifices which they abominate. The same seems to be the meaning of the first clause; for it would be harsh to interpret the same forms of expression differently within a few words of each other; except that the name of Jehovah, put in opposition as it is to “the abomination,” seems to require a passive signification. For Moses says emphatically, that “it is not right to sacrifice the abomination of Egypt to Jehovah the God of Israel.” If this view be adopted, “the abomination” will be the profanation of true and pure worship, wherewith the sacred ceremonies of the Egyptians were defiled; as much as to say, that it was unlawful to mix up the worship of the true God with such sacrilege. And, in fact, Moses seems to contend with a twofold argument; first, that it was not right, secondly, that it was not expedient. Take this, then, as the first reason, that a sacrifice which should. be polluted by the abominations of Egypt, would neither be lawful nor pleasing to God; the second will follow after, that the Egyptians would not tolerate it; because they would conceive both themselves and their gods to be grievously insulted, if their accustomed mode of sacrificing should be violated. This interpretation is fuller, and contains fuller doctrine, if Moses, first of all, was solicitous as to the honor of God, and did not regard the advantage of the people only; and in this sentiment, that the true God could not be duly worshipped unless when separated from all idols, there is nothing forced. But, since in the same verse “the abomination of the Egyptians” is taken actively, it will be well, in order that the construction may be more easy, to expound it thus in both places. Then the sense of the first clause will be, it is not consistent to expose the worship of our God to the reproaches and sneers of the Gentiles; which would be the case, if the Egyptians should see us honoring a sacrificial ceremony which they abominate. I do not, indeed, assent to their opinion, who will not admit the passage to consist of two clauses, but read it connectedly thus — that it was not right to do this, because the Egyptians would stone the Israelites. For Moses not only had regard to what was best for the people, but primarily to what would please God, viz., that His holy name should not be profaned. I see no foundation in reason for restraining, as is usually done, the word “abomination” to the animals of sacrifice; and, therefore, I extend it to the whole operation of sacrificing. (102)
(101) C. adopts the translation of S. M., instead of that found in the V., and gives his readers the short note of S.M., “Non convenit, sive non est rectum.” — W.
(102) “For the Egyptians worshipped divers beasts, as the ox, the sheep, and such like, which the Israelites offered in sacrifice; which things the Egyptians abhorred to see.” — Geneva Version, in loco.