I am that I am—אהיה אשר אהיה Eheyeh asher Eheyeh. These words have been variously understood. The Vulgate translates Ego Sum Qui Sum, I am who am. The Septuagint, Εγω ειμι ὁ Ων, I am he who exists. The Syriac, the Persic, and the Chaldee preserve the original words without any gloss. The Arabic paraphrases them, The Eternal, who passes not away; which is the same interpretation given by Abul Farajius, who also preserves the original words, and gives the above as their interpretation. The Targum of Jonathan, and the Jerusalem Targum paraphrase the words thus: “He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things existed.” As the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be, some have supposed that God simply designed to inform Moses, that what he had been to his fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would be to him and the Israelites; and that he would perform the promises he had made to his fathers, by giving their descendants the promised land. It is difficult to put a meaning on the words; they seem intended to point out the eternity and self-existence of God. Plato, in his Parmenides, where he treats sublimely of the nature of God, says, Ουδ’ αρα ονομα εστιν αυτῳ, nothing can express his nature; therefore no name can be attributed to him. See the conclusion of this chapter, Exodus 3:22 (note) and on the word Jehovah, Exodus 34:6 (note), Exodus 34:7 (note).
Exodus 3:15
This is my name for ever—The name here referred to is that which immediately precedes, יהוה אלהים Yehovah Elohim, which we translate the Lord God, the name by which God had been known from the creation of the world, (see Genesis 2:4). and the name by which he is known among the same people to the present day. Even the heathens knew this name of the true God; and hence out of our יהוה Yehovah they formed their Jao, Jeve, and Jove; so that the word has been literally fulfilled, This is my memorial unto all generations. See Clarke’s note on the word Elohim, Genesis 1:1 (note). As to be self-existent and eternal must be attributes of God for ever, does it not follow that the לעלם leolam, for ever, in the text signifies eternity? “This is my name to eternity—and my memorial,” לדר דר ledor dor, “to all succeeding generations.” While human generations continue he shall be called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; but when time shall be no more, he shall be Jehovah Elohim. Hence the first expression refers to his eternal existence, the latter to the discovery he should make of himself as long as time should last. See Genesis 21:33. Diodorus Siculus says, that “among the Jews, Moses is reported to have received his laws from the God named Jao,” Ιαω, i.e., Jeue, Jove, or Jeve; for in all these ways the word יהוה Yehovah may be pronounced; and in this way I have seen it on Egyptian monuments. See Diod., lib. l., c. xciv.
Exodus 3:16
Elders of Israel—Though it is not likely the Hebrews were permitted to have any regular government at this time, yet there can be no doubt of their having such a government in the time of Joseph, and for some considerable time after; the elders of each tribe forming a kind of court of magistrates, by which all actions were tried, and legal decisions made, in the Israelitish community.
I have surely visited you—An exact fulfillment of the prediction of Joseph, Genesis 50:24, God will surely visit you, and in the same words too.
Exodus 3:18
They shall hearken to thy voice—This assurance was necessary to encourage him in an enterprise so dangerous and important.
Three days’ journey into the wilderness—Evidently intending Mount Sinai, which is reputed to be about three days’ journey, the shortest way, from the land of Goshen. In ancient times, distances were computed by the time required to pass over them. Thus, instead of miles, furlongs, etc., it was said, the distance from one place to another was so many days’, so many hours’ journey; and it continues the same in all countries where there are no regular roads or highways.
Exodus 3:19
I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand—When the facts detailed in this history have been considered in connection with the assertion as it stands in our Bibles, the most palpable contradiction has appeared. That the king of Egypt did let them go, and that by a mighty hand, the book itself amply declares. We should therefore seek for another meaning of the original word. ולא velo, which generally means and not, has sometimes the meaning of if not, unless, except, etc.; and in Becke’s Bible, 1549, it is thus translated: I am sure that the kyng of Egypt wyl not let you go, Except wyth a mighty hand. This import of the negative particle, which is noticed by Noldius, Heb. Part., p. 328, was perfectly understood by the Vulgate, where it is translated nisi, unless; and the Septuagint in their εαν μη, which is of the same import; and so also the Coptic. The meaning therefore is very plain: The king of Egypt, who now profits much by your servitude, will not let you go till he sees my hand stretched out, and he and his nation be smitten with ten plagues. Hence God immediately adds, Exodus 3:20: I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders—and after that, he will let you go.
Exodus 3:22
Every woman shall borrow—This is certainly not a very correct translation: the original word שאל shaal signifies simply to ask, request, demand, require, inquire, etc.; but it does not signify to borrow in the proper sense of that word, though in a very few places of Scripture it is thus used. In this and the parallel place, Exodus 12:35, the word signifies to ask or demand, and not to borrow, which is a gross mistake into which scarcely any of the versions, ancient or modern, have fallen, except our own. The Septuagint has αιτησει, she shall ask; the Vulgate, postulabit, she shall demand; the Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, Samaritan Version, Coptic, and Persian, are the same as the Hebrew. The European versions are generally correct on this point; and our common English version is almost the sole transgressor: I say, the common version, which, copying the Bible published by Becke in 1549, gives us the exceptionable term borrow, for the original שאל shaal, which in the Geneva Bible, and Barker’s Bible of 1615, and some others, is rightly translated aske. God commanded the Israelites to ask or demand a certain recompense for their past services, and he inclined the hearts of the Egyptians to give liberally; and this, far from a matter of oppression, wrong, or even charity, was no more than a very partial recompense for the long and painful services which we may say six hundred thousand Israelites had rendered to Egypt, during a considerable number of years. And there can be no doubt that while their heaviest oppression lasted, they were permitted to accumulate no kind of property, as all their gains went to their oppressors. Our exceptionable translation of the original has given some countenance to the desperate cause of infidelity; its abettors have exultingly said: “Moses represents the just God as ordering the Israelites to borrow the goods of the Egyptians under the pretense of returning them, whereas he intended that they should march off with the booty.” Let these men know that there was no borrowing in the case; and that if accounts were fairly balanced, Egypt would be found still in considerable arrears to Israel. Let it also be considered that the Egyptians had never any right to the services of the Hebrews. Egypt owed its policy, its opulence, and even its political existence, to the Israelites. What had Joseph for his important services? Nothing! He had neither district, nor city, nor lordship in Egypt; nor did he reserve any to his children. All his services were gratuitous; and being animated with a better hope than any earthly possession could inspire, he desired that even his bones should be carried up out of Egypt. Jacob and his family, it is true, were permitted to sojourn in Goshen, but they were not provided for in that place; for they brought their cattle, their goods, and all that they had into Egypt, Genesis 46:1, 6; so that they had nothing but the bare land to feed on; and had built treasure cities or fortresses, we know not how many; and two whole cities, Pithom and Raamses, besides; and for all these services they had no compensation whatever, but were besides cruelly abused, and obliged to witness, as the sum of their calamities, the daily murder of their male infants. These particulars considered, will infidelity ever dare to produce this case again in support of its worthless pretensions?
Jewels of silver, etc.—The word כלי keley we have already seen signifies vessels, instruments, weapons, etc., and may be very well translated by our English term, articles or goods. The Israelites got both gold and silver, probably both in coin and in plate of different kinds; and such raiment as was necessary for the journey which they were about to undertake.
Ye shall spoil the Egyptians—The verb נצל natsal signifies, not only to spoil, snatch away, but also to get away, to escape, to deliver, to regain, or recover. Spoil signifies what is taken by rapine or violence; but this cannot be the meaning of the original word here, as the Israelites only asked, and the Egyptians with out fear, terror, or constraint, freely gave. It is worthy of remark that the original word is used, 1 Samuel 30:22, to signify the recovery of property that had been taken away by violence: “Then answered all the wicked men, and men of Belial, of those that went with David, Because they went not with us we will not give them aught of the Spoil (מהשלל mehashShalal) that we have Recovered, אשר הצלנו asher Hitstsalnu. In this sense we should understand the word here. The Israelites recovered a part of their property—their wages, of which they had been most unjustly deprived by the Egyptians. In this chapter we have much curious and important information; but what is most interesting is the name by which God was pleased to make himself known to Moses and to the Israelites, a name by which the Supreme Being was afterwards known among the wisest inhabitants of the earth. He who Is and who Will Be what he Is. This is a proper characteristic of the Divine Being, who is, properly speaking, the only Being, because he is independent and eternal; whereas all other beings, in whatsoever forms they may appear, are derived, finite, changeable, and liable to destruction, decay, and even to annihilation. When God, therefore, announced himself to Moses by this name, he proclaimed his own eternity and immateriality; and the very name itself precludes the possibility of idolatry, because it was impossible for the mind, in considering it, to represent the Divine Being in any assignable shape; for who could represent Being or Existence by any limited form? And who can have any idea of a form that is unlimited? Thus, then, we find that the first discovery which God made of himself was intended to show the people the simplicity and spirituality of his nature; that while they considered him as Being, and the Cause of all Being, they might be preserved from all idolatry for ever. The very name itself is a proof of a Divine revelation; for it is not possible that such an idea could have ever entered into the mind of man, unless it had been communicated from above. It could not have been produced by reasoning, for there were no premises on which it could be built, nor any analogies by which it could have been formed. We can as easily comprehend eternity as we can being, simply considered in and of itself, when nothing of assignable forms, colors, or qualities existed, besides its infinite and illimitable self. To this Divine discovery the ancient Greeks owed the inscription which they placed above the door of the temple of Apollo at Delphi: the whole of the inscription consisted in the simple monosyllable Ei, Thou Art, the second person of the Greek substantive verb ειμι, I am. On this inscription Plutarch, one of the most intelligent of all the Gentile philosophers, made an express treatise, περι του ΕΙ εν Δελφοις, having received the true interpretation in his travels in Egypt, whither he had gone for the express purpose of inquiring into their ancient learning, and where he had doubtless seen these words of God to Moses in the Greek version of the Septuagint, which had been current among the Egyptians (for whose sake it was first made) about four hundred years previously to the death of Plutarch. This philosopher observes that “this title is not only proper, but peculiar to God, because He alone is being; for mortals have no participation of true being, because that which begins and ends, and is continually changing, is never one nor the same, nor in the same state. The deity on whose temple this word was inscribed was called Apollo, Απολλν, from α, negative, and πολυς, many, because God is One, his nature simple, his essence uncompounded.” Hence he informs us the ancient mode of addressing God was, “ΕΙ ΕΝ, Thou art One, ου γαρ πολλα το θειον εστιν, for many cannot be attributed to the Divine nature: και οὑ προτερον ουδεν εστιν, ουδ’ υστερον, ουδε μελλον, ουδε παρωχημενον, ουδε πρεσβυτερον, ουδε νεωτερον, in which there is neither first nor last, future nor past, old nor young; αλλ’ εις ων ενι τῳ νυν το αει πεπληρωκε, but as being one, fills up in one Now an eternal duration.” And he concludes with observing that “this word corresponds to certain others on the same temple, viz., ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΕΑΥΤΟΝ Know thyself; as if, under the name ΕΙ. Thou Art, the Deity designed to excite men to venerate Him as eternally existing, ὡς οντα διαπαντος, and to put them in mind of the frailty and mortality of their own nature.” What beautiful things have the ancient Greek philosophers stolen from the testimonies of God to enrich their own works, without any kind of acknowledgment! And, strange perversity of man! these are the very things which we so highly applaud in the heathen copies, while we neglect or pass them by in the Divine originals!
Views: 0
You need to be a member of I Am A Ruby Network! to add comments!
Replies