Commentary Critical and Explanatory
Exodus 17:14-16
And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
Write this for a memorial in a book - Hebrew, the book; the public register of occurrences kept by direction of God, and in which not every incident, but only special events, were recorded. Hence, the special injunction of Yahweh to record an account of this contest.
And rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, х wªsiym (H7760)] - and put it in the ears of Joshua 1:1:e., inform him of this divine decree, and impress it upon his mind as a duty incumbent upon him, and all who may be delegated rulers in Israel, to execute this sentence.
For I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. If the bloody character of this statute seems to be at variance with the mild and merciful character of God, the reasons are to be sought for in the deep and implacable vengeance they meditated against Israel (Psalms 83:4). The Amalekites were the first of the nations (Numbers 24:20) to oppose the progress of Israel; and therefore they were, as Kurtz expresses it, 'the prototypes of paganism in its hostile relation to the kingdom of God.' They were not, as Michaelis represents them, a petty tribe of roving Bedouins, but the most powerful of the adjoining people, since they dared to attack a body of 600,000 warriors. They were repulsed on this occasion, not exterminated; but such an impression had been made upon them that, although the Israelites remained 38 years in the wilderness, they never renewed the attack.
The doom of extermination denounced against the Amalekites has been a great difficulty in the way of establishing the historical truth of this book; Rationalistic and infidel writers declaring it to be irreconcileable with the benevolence of the divine character and government. But it must be borne in mind that, although the attack upon Israel was cruel, treacherous, and altogether unprovoked, it was not the baseness and implacable hostility of Amalek, but their daring impiety, which drew down upon them the vengeance of heaven (Deuteronomy 25:17). "The attack, in respect both to the time and the circumstances, must have been intended by the Amalekites, as well as considered by the Israelites, as a direct insult to the majesty of Yahweh, in his character of special guardian and immediate Lord of this chosen people. It was not consistent with the purposes of the divine economy to vindicate the honour of Yahweh by any general punishment of the Amalekites at that time: their attack was repelled, but not retaliated, nor was their territory invaded.
This contemptuous defiance of the power and majesty of God would therefore have appeared to escape with impunity, if no further notice had been taken of it-a circumstance which might have degraded the Deity in the estimation of Israel, who judged of His power, as all other nations then judged of their guardian gods, by His rigour and promptitude in defending His people and punishing their enemies. This seems to be a reason why God judged it necessary to announce to the Israelites that, though He would not at present punish the insult of the Amalekites, He yet would not suffer it to pass finally unpunished; but that he would authorize and employ them to inflict, at a remote period, the punishment it merited; thus impressing His people themselves with the salutary conviction that, where the majesty of Yahweh was insulted, PRESENT delay of punishment afforded no presumption of final impunity (Graves 'On the Pentateuch,' 2:, p. 90: cf. Butler's 'Analogy,' part 1:, ch. 2:,p. 56).
Verse 15. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-nissi - i:e., the Lord ( Yahweh (H3068)) my banner. [The Septuagint has: kurios katafigee mou, my refuge, neec (H5251) denotes a sign, standard, a signal erected on an eminence.] Since no mention is made of sacrifices, it has been supposed that this altar was intended as a pious trophy, a grateful memorial after the battle was won, not in honour of Moses, who had raised his hands, nor to Aaron and Hur, who had upheld them, nor to Joshua, the commander, nor to the soldiers who had fought the battle, but to the Lord, whose right hand and holy arm had gotten them the victory.
Verse 16. For he said - literally, 'And he said,' which is preferable, as this verse does not assign a reason of the act recorded in the preceding passage, but is an additional sentence.
Because the Lord hath sworn - х keec (H3676), a hapax legomenon, is generally regarded as used for kicee' (H3678), the word which stands in the text of the Samaritan codex.] The literal translation of this obscure passage is, 'Because the hand upon the throne of the Lord,' or, 'the hand of the Lord upon His throne,' 'The lifting up the hand' is a form of swearing not only adopted among men (Genesis 14:22), but also applied figuratively to God (Deuteronomy 32:40). And His hand lifted upon His throne, the seat of His glorious majesty, denotes the most solemn oath-God swearing by Himself (Hebrews 6:13). This is the meaning put upon the clause by the Chaldee and Arabic Paraphrasts. But others consider the reference is to Amalek; 'the hand (namely, of Amalek), or his hand (is) upon the throne of God' - i:e., upon Israel, among whom the seat or chosen dwelling of God was. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with the meaning and order of the original words; and it seems to harmonize better than the former with the tenor of the context, besides assigning an adequate reason for the exterminating doom and perpetual war that was denounced against Amalek. [But Gesenius and others are of opinion that instead of keec (H3676), throne, yeec, standard, banner, is the proper reading, and what is required by Exodus 17:15. The Septuagint has: en cheiri krufaia, by a concealed, unseen hand the Lord will war against Amalek.]