The Pulpit Commentaries
Exodus 8:25-32
EXPOSITION
The fourth plague moves the Pharaoh more than any preceding one. He still cannot bring himself to grant the demand of Moses; but he offers a compromise. The Israelites shall have a respite from their toils, and be permitted to hold their festival, and offer the needful sacrifices in Egypt (Exodus 8:25). When this offer is for good reasons not accepted, he yields even further—he will let the people go and sacrifice in the wilderness—only they must not "go far away"(Exodus 8:28). Having made this promise, he obtains for the second time the intercession of Moses and the discontinuance of the plague in consequence of it. But then, as before, when he saw that there was respite (Exodus 8:15), he retracted his promise, hardened himself, and refused to allow the people to quit Egypt (Exodus 8:32).
In the land—i.e; in Egypt within the limits of my dominions, so that I may not lose sight of you—far less run the risk of losing you altogether.
It is not meet so to do. So many animals were held sacred by the Egyptians, some universally, some partially, that, if they held a great festival anywhere in Egypt, the Israelites could not avoid offending the religious feelings of their neighbours. Some animals would be sure to be sacrificed—white cows, or heifers, for instance—by some of the people, which the Egyptians regarded it as sacrilegious to put to death. A bloody conflict, or even a civil war, might be the consequence. By the abomination of the Egyptians seems to be meant animals of which the Egyptians would abominate the killing. It has generally been supposed that either cows alone, or "cows, bulls and oxen" are meant; but recent researches seem to show that it was only white cows which it was absolutely unlawful to sacrifice. Will they not stone us? Death was the legal penalty for wilfully killing any sacred animal in Egypt (Herod. 2.65). On one occasion even a Roman ambassador was put to death for accidentally killing a eat (Diod. Sic. 1.88). Stoning does not appear to have been a legal punishment in Egypt, so that we must suppose Moses to have feared the people present taking the law into their own hands, seizing the sacrificers, and killing them by this ready method.
Three days' journey into the wilderness. This was the demand made from the first (Exodus 5:3) by Divine direction (Exodus 3:18). Its object was to secure the absence of Egyptians as witnesses. As he shall command us. Compare Exodus 10:26, where Moses observes—"We know not with what we must serve the Lord until we come thither." Divine directions were expected as to the number and the selection of the victims.
Only ye shall not go very far away. Here for the first time Pharaoh shows his real objection to letting the Israelites go—he is afraid that they will escape him. So he suggests the compromise, that they shall just enter the wilderness on his eastern border, remaining near the frontier, and therefore within his reach. Moses seems to have made no objection to this proviso. As Kalisch says, "he committal himself entirely to the guidance and direction of God." The three days' journey which he had requested by Divine command (Exodus 3:18) would not take him far beyond the Egyptian frontier. Entreat for me. Compare Exodus 8:8. An abbreviated form is now used, as sufficiently intelligible.
To-morrow. As Pharaoh had fixed the "morrow" for the departure of the second plague (Exodus 8:10), so Moses now announces a similar date for the departure of the fourth. He adds a remonstrance against any further deceit or tergiversation, which Pharaoh must have felt to be well deserved.
There remained not one. The hand of God was shewn in the removal no less than in the infliction of the plagues. The complete disappearance was as abnormal as the sudden coming.
At this time also. Compare Exodus 7:13, Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:15.
HOMILETICS
Compromise not allowable in religious matters.
The struggles of political and social life, the conflicting claims of races, nations, states, classes, parties, are usually terminated, and perhaps, under the existing condition of things, are best terminated, by compromise. Let neither side get all it wants—let both yield something to the other—let the prudent and the moderate on each side seek an intermediate course between the two extremes advocated—and the result is often peace and something approaching to contentment. Compromise is the soul of diplomacy—the idol of clever Parliamentary leaders and party managers—the oil, as has been said, whereby the wheels Of the world are made to run smoothly. But in religion, compromise is out of place.
(1) There must be no compromise on any question of morality. If a thing is wrong, it must be got rid of, not tolerated under certain restrictions; e.g; slavery, prostitution, vivisection, intemperance. A compromise between vice and virtue is an insult to virtue.
(2) There must be no compromise with respect to doctrine. Doctrine is either false or true; and between truth and falsity there is no half-way house. Half a truth is a lie. To compromise the truth, is to give place to a lie.
(3) There must be no compromise with respect to any Christian duty. The laws of God are plain and must be obeyed. Not to obey them is to disobey them. Moses was ordered to lead his people out of Egypt. To have accepted Pharaoh's offer would have been a flagrant breach of the command given to him. It was not necessary for him to see any ill consequences, in order that he should feel bound to reject it. Ill consequences even could none have been foreseen—would have been sure to follow. For he would have forfeited God's blessing—he would have entered on the path of disobedience—to curry favour with an earthly monarch he would have offended against the King of Heaven.
The duty of God's servants to rebuke the great of the earth.
"Let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more." Deceit is despicable in the meanest of men. How much more in a king! Subterfuge, tricks, lies, are said to be the refuge of the weak, the only resource whereby they can meet and defend themselves against the violence and oppressiveness of the strong. What need has a king of them? A king drags his honour in the dust when he forfeits his word, and does more to lower the dignity of kings in general than fifty rebels or revolutionists. Our own "King Charles the Martyr" has lost half the sympathy which he would otherwise have obtained, by his lamentable want of straightforwardness and steadfastness. And when kings err, in this or any other way, it is the duty of those who have the opportunity, to rebuke them. Elijah rebuked Ahab; Azariah, son of Oded, rebuked Asa; Eliezer, Jehoshaphat; Azarlah the high priest, Uzziah; John Baptist, Herod Antipas. Jesus himself spoke of Herod as "that fox," The great are very apt to urge that whoever says a word in their dispraise is "speaking evil of dignities"(Jude 1:8), and so offending against the law of God. But the examples cited show that "dignities" have no claim to exemption from the rebukes and reproofs of God's servants. Dignities ought to be above needing rebuke. They ought to set an example of virtue and highmindedness, and, above all, of regard for their word, when once they have pledged it. What might be forgiven in inferior men, cannot be Pardoned in them. "Be wise, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth." "A city set on a hill cannot be hid."