When I exegete a book, I tend to get very bogged down in the details and so, I decided to develop a series of a few short lessons on various books of the Bible, where I attempt to simply deal with the primary points of each verse without getting too bogged down in detail. Each lesson is 4–5 pages long and designed to be read at one sitting. Although it is always nice to have a Bible open when studying this, I have, in almost all cases, included the relevant Scripture within the study.

I anticipate that the study of the book of Exodus will be considerably shorter than the book of Genesis.

As these lessons are completed in real time, only the first set of links are to be found.

At this point, we begin a study of the book of Exodus. The intent of this study is to help you to understand what is found in Exodus, what it all means, how this relates to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and also, how it relates to our lives today (seeing that the historical events recorded in this book took place about 3500 years ago).

Despite the fact that we live in the Church Age; that our Lord’s death for our sins is an established historical fact; the Old Testament is still the Word of God and it is still relevant to our lives today. Therefore, we are able to study the Old Testament and to learn and grow from it. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isa. 40:8; ESV) [Jesus is speaking] Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt. 5:17–18; Berean Study Bible)

When studying the Old Testament, we have to be careful here and not to fall into a trap of legalism or misapplication. It is quite easy for the novice to study the book of Exodus and begin debating in his own mind if he ought to be observing the Sabbath or not; and he may even find himself wondering, which day of the week is it? (The Sabbath is Saturday.)

We live in the post-canon period of the Church Age; during which God works through the body of believers known as the church. There is no concern given to a person’s race, gender or national origin—every person who believes in Jesus Christ is saved and is, therefore, a member of the body of Christ (1Cor. 12:12–27). Every person who believes in Jesus is a part of the church universal. We do not have a relationship to God through the nation Israel as the Hebrew people had. Nor is nation Israel (or the Jewish people) somehow transformed into the church. These are two separate entities, with some overlap in the first century a.d.

However, the God of the church is also the God of Israel. His essence, in these two dispensations, remains unchanged. There is not a God of the Law in the Old Testament and a God of Love in the New. Jesus does not reveal God the Father as being somehow nicer in the New Testament than He was in the Old. Therefore, there is much that we can learn about God in the Old Testament. Furthermore, we learn to appreciate God’s incredible plan as we study His prophecies and the types found in the Old Testament.

There are roughly 400 years between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1; just as there are about 400 years between the closing out of the Old Testament and the birth of our Lord. The reason for the latter is, there needed to be a clear delineation between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament needed to be established, stand on its own, and exist in its completed form by the time of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament had a finished text and existed in the Hebrew, Greek and probably the Arabic and Aramaic by the time of the first advent (when Jesus was on the earth). The Old Testament text had been established and it was well-known to the Jewish people (it was read in their synagogues). Furthermore, although the people did not fully appreciate Who the Messiah would be, most could agree upon which passages were messianic (that is, refer to the coming Messiah). Interestingly enough, even though the rabbis could agree upon which passages were messianic, they, for the most part, were unable to recognize their Messiah.

This time gap between the testaments, during which time the Bible is translated into Greek, insures that no one could go back and change the Old Testament in order to match up the messianic passages with the historic Jesus or with the things that Jesus did. That Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament could not be questioned, because the text of the Old Testament was not in question.

Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in 1947, gave clear evidence of a completed Old Testament. These scrolls confirm the accuracy of the current Old Testament text, as they came from a library in existence roughly 100–200 years before our Lord. So this 400 year gap between the testaments was essential.

It is less clear as to why there are 400 years between Genesis and Exodus without a word being said, apart from the genealogies found in the first half of 1Chronicles (which is also the case for the gap between the Old and New Testaments). This fulfills what God promised to Abraham, that his people would be in Egypt for 400 years; and perhaps it has to do with the Scriptures being primarily produced in the land God gave to the Jews. Most, but not all, of the Old Testament was written in the land of Canaan (the land which God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob).

There is an important change which occurs after these 400 years—God begins to treat Israel as a national entity as opposed to a chosen family of individuals.

We have discussed the authorship of Genesis on many occasions, and I have put forth the theory that it was written by maybe 8–10 different people and that it was passed along orally from generation to generation. If Moses did anything at all, regarding the book of Genesis, he committed Genesis to written form; and he, along with the other authors, may have updated some of the geographic references to cities and areas found in Genesis (although that probably was not necessary). In any case, there is no reason to credit Moses with the authorship of Genesis; nor does anyone in the New Testament do this. However, Moses is said to be the author of the other 4 books of the Pentateuch in the both Testaments; and there is internal evidence in these 4 books which supports his authorship.

Egypt is one of the most notable of the ancient world countries, and it still exists today as a sovereign nation. The interactions between Egypt and the children of Israel are legend, and recorded throughout Scripture.

The extra Biblical history which has been preserved from Egypt is remarkable, but not infallible. We have seen in our own history that there are attempts to rewrite it—sometimes only months after the fact. So we ought not be surprised if Egypt attempted to write and rewrite its own history by those in power. The same thing is not true of the history of Israel, as its history is preserved accurately in the Word of God—they cannot go back and change it because that would be changing their Scriptures. There has never been an attempt with Scriptures to whitewash any of Israel’s history. Israel’s history and the people who made its history are to be found, with their faults, their good points, their victories and defeats, throughout the Old Testament. Even though the Hebrews are rightfully called God’s people, this does not mean that their behavior has been exemplary at all times. Recall that when Pontius Pilate offered the Jewish people a choice between releasing Jesus or Barrabas (a horrible criminal), they called for the release of Barrabas, which meant that Jesus would suffer crucifixion by the Romans.

We will study some of this not-so-exemplary behavior on the part of the Hebrew peoples in the book of Exodus.

There are two very difficult topics found in the book of Exodus: (1) the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (what does it mean and who did it?) and (2) the time period that Israel was in Egypt. Although I cannot promise to be the final word on either of these topics, I have come up with some unique observations which may help us to understand these two controversial subjects better.

The book of Genesis was primarily narrative taking place over 2000–3000 years, with a few genealogies thrown in. The book appears to have been written by many different authors with some minor additions made to the text from time to time to update the names of various places (these changes are called glosses).

It appears that the text of Genesis was transmitted was from father to son, by memory. And on some occasions, the son would add a few chapters of material to the text and pass all of it on to his son.

For a significant portion of the Genesis text, it is my theory that several people presented this history to their children—Joseph and Judah for certain—and possibly Leah and others. Jacob, as the elder in Egypt, would have given the first 36 chapters of Genesis, all from memory, and then Judah and Joseph to step forward and pick it up from there, trading off. A few decades later, a son of Judah and a son of Joseph might speak in the place of their fathers; and the oldest living patriarch would still give the first 36 chapters of Genesis.

Although this theory is conjecture, it is very much in line with the long-established traditions of the Jewish people—many of these traditions are followed even today. It would also explain the chronology of the final 14 chapters, where we seamlessly move from one set of eyes to another set of eyes (known as 3^rd person omniscient today).

We do not have any specific text which tells us that Genesis was memorized; nor do we have any text which refers to writing down the words of Genesis; nor do we have any specific authorship for this book listed anywhere. We have some reasonable circumstantial evidence for this theory (the personal nature of some of the histories; the way that the narratives are organized); all of which we have discussed previously.

We do not know who exactly possessed the Word of God; and who exactly passed it along to his children—but there are portions of Genesis which are so personal as to defy being written by some third party hundreds of years later. Furthermore, there is enough looking back in Exodus to Genesis to suggest that many exodus-era Hebrews knew the book of Genesis.

The Authorship of the Book of Exodus:

Unlike the book of Genesis, there is every indication that the contents the book of Exodus were actually written down (and that, they had writing materials available to them during that time period). God actually instructs Moses to write down His words; and Moses is very careful throughout the book of Exodus to distinguish between God’s words and his own words. We nearly always know when God is speaking; and we know the events which take place before and after. Moses is meticulous about who is speaking.

Given Moses’ background, there is every indication that he received the best education available to an Egyptian during that time (which would have included reading, writing, geography, history and languages). Script writing in Egypt goes back to 3150 b.c. (Hieroglyphic writing only a short 50 years before that). What we have studied at the end of Genesis was around the 1800's b.c. (The 1600's by a different calculation). In any case, writing in Egypt preceded Jacob’s family moving to Egypt by well over a millennium.

These facts may argue for a recording of the book of Genesis (and Job?) during the time that Jacob’s sons resided in Egypt. However, nothing is ever actually said about the recording of those two books.

Exodus is a much different sort of book. The author appears to be Moses (he is called the author on many occasions in the New Testament); he is the central human figure of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. God on several occasions told Moses to write down His words (Exodus 17:14 34:27). Moses is said to have written down portions of the Pentateuch (Exodus 24:4 Num. 33:1–2 Deut. 31:9–11). Furthermore, Moses is said to be the author of those 4 books in the Old Testament (Joshua 1:7–8 8:31–32 1Kings 2:3 2Kings 14:6 21:8 Ezra 6:18 Neh. 13:1 Dan. 9:11–13 Mal. 4:4) and in the New Testament (Matt. 19:8 Mark 12:26 John 5:45–47 7:19 Acts 3:22 Rom. 10:5). He is never said to be the author of Genesis.

The Time Frame of the Book of Exodus:

Laying aside the history noted in the first chapter of Exodus, this book, because it includes the birth of Moses, covers 80 or 81 years in time; but most of this book (Exodus 3–40) actually deals with less than a year’s time.

The primary narrative picks up with Moses living in Midian, out with his sheep (apparently) and then he sees this burning bush. At the guidance of God, Moses returns to his people, the sons of Abraham, whom he then leads out of Egypt under the direction of God. Most of the first half of Exodus is about Moses’ confrontation with the Pharaoh of Egypt, with his organization of the people of Israel, with leading them out of Egypt and to Mount Sinai. Much of the second half of Exodus will take place at the foot of Mount Sinai, where Moses will hear and then convey the Law of God to his people. Exodus 3–40 takes place over a period of perhaps a year’s time.

Like most of the Bible, the history recorded appears to have been done after the fact. That is, Moses does not appear to keep a diary (with the exception of Num. 33). Whereas, Moses, who personally observed these events take place, was the author; he experienced the event, time passed, and then he wrote about it (or, it is possible that he dictated much of this book to Joshua). This is not some great revelation nor is this approach novel and unusual; this is how most eyewitnesses have nearly always written history. I mention this simply because, in our era of the internet and instant communication, many historical events are written down as they occur or within minutes of them occurring; and then that is disseminated; or a video of the event is made and that is posted online immediately after the incident (often edited in order to push a particular point of view). It is not unusual for a major news event to occur, with books on that event coming out within 1 or 2 years of the event (for instance, the terrorist attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi—several books on this event came out, presenting two very different points of view about that event).

In the ancient world, it would not be unusual for an eyewitness to wait 10, 20 or more years before committing a series of events to writing (John did not record his gospel until 60 years after the fact). It sometimes takes time and accumulated wisdom in order to help a person put the events in his periphery into a reasonable historic context (this appears to be the case for the gospel writers). It is easy to misread history and give significance to unimportant events; but yet to ignore the most important events. For my generation, the defining event was the assassination of President Kennedy; and the next generation had the defining event the explosion of the Challenger; and after that, the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11. Even though a considerable number of people believed the United States government to be taken over when Kennedy was killed, and that there was some great conspiracy involved, in all actuallity, his death in 1963 is at most, an historical blip in the history of the United States—not very meaningful apart from giving Lyndon Johnson power as president, who was one of the most effective presidents in American history (not saying that he was a good president; but he was certainly one of the most effective).

We often witness history (particularly today) but without being able to appreciate its importance or lack thereof. As we grow older, as we become wiser (ideally speaking), and we see the event in the timeline of history, we often develop a better perspective (not really true with the druggies who were affected by the assassination of JFK—some of them still see this as a complex conspiracy to take over our government).

God waited until Moses was 80 before appearing to him, so Moses lived a long life both in the palace of Egypt and in the quiet fields of Midian. He led two very different lives—from age 1 to 40, he was being groomed to become a future pharaoh; and in age 40–80, he was a simple married rancher/shepherd out in the desert-wilderness of Midian, with a wife, two kids and some sort of dwelling place. However, Moses’ life became dramatically different from age 80 on, witnessing with his own eyes the great power of God. And the most dramatic event that Moses will observe? He will lead the people of Abraham out of Egypt and into the Land of Promise. This is leadership and an event unlike any other in the history of the world. And Moses, more than anyone else, did not think that he was up to it.

With Egypt being so close to Canaan, with the various interactions which took place between these areas—the people of Canaan, for instance, went to Egypt for several years to purchase grain (those who could afford it). So it should not seem far-fetched that, a written language for the Canaanites and for the people of Jacob to have developed by this time. However, in viewing the Hieratic Book of the Dead of Padimin written sometime after 664 b.c., I do not see any sort of similarities between the written form of ancient Egyptian and Hebrew. Let me suggest some various possibilities: if the book of Genesis was committed to writing at any point around the time of the end of Genesis, while the people of Jacob were in Egypt, then: (1) they had developed a written language by that time and were able to use it; (2) they decided to keep their holy book written in a language which most Egyptians could not read, possibly in order to protect it. Or, (3) they retained the books of Genesis and Job in oral form.

In any case, the first time we hear of anything being written down is in the book of Exodus, where God specifically tells Moses to write His words down. This implies that a written language for the sons of Jacob existed (how long it existed or how it was developed is unknown to us); and the public writing of the words of God in the book of Joshua (Joshua 8:31–32) suggests that the people of Jacob were able to read (otherwise, why write down stuff in a public area that no one is able to read?).

Interestingly enough, the 4 books of Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) each have their own flavor. Each book is very different from the others. However, Moses is said to be the author in both the Old and New Testaments of those 4 books.

Apart from the Bible, the written Hebrew language certainly goes back to around 1000 b.c., around the time of King David. The earliest example that we have of Hebrew writing comes from this time, although that is disputed. This does not mean that the Hebrew language did not develop until this time; it simply means that we do not have examples of it from before this era as we do of Egyptian writing. Given the ephemeral natural of the writing materials used by the Hebrew people, we would not expect any of their writings of that era to remain. But they do.

The Accuracy of the Bible:

People seem to think that there ought to be copies of the Old Testament (or portions of it) dating back to a few months after it was written. That is not the case. The long-standing tradition of the scribes was to make a perfect copy of the Old Testament; and then the older, worn and imperfect manuscript would be destroyed. The oldest Old Testament books that we have date back to 200–100 b.c. (and, obviously, they had to have been written prior to that). Those manuscripts are actually a recent discovery known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947). Prior to that discovery, we had manuscripts of some Old Testament books dating back to around a.d. 900.

Jeremy Thomas: Until the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls authority rested on the Masoretic Texts, mostly from the 10^th century. Recent discoveries of the Qumran Scrolls in various caves near the ancient community of Qumran near the Dead Sea have confirmed a tremendous preservation of the OT. 95%+ of the text is considered accurate, a figure unheard of among ancient documents except in the NT which boasts 98-99% accuracy. There can be no doubt that what we have in Exodus is a near perfect account of the actual events and no archaeological finding has ever nullified the historical record in the Bible. Time and again, secularists are faced with archaeological finds that only confirm what the Bible already said.

For some believers, this is a difficult fact; because they would hope that God would preserve His Word 100%. I have personally exegeted most of the Old Testament, between Genesis and 1Kings, along with some other books and psalms, and I can recall one verse in all of that time where there was a major mistake with the text I have certainly come up against verses I did not fee qualified to interpret or translate—which could have been because of some problematic text (but, more than likely, the problem was my imperfect understanding of the Hebrew). But, I have never run into a textual problem where it changed a major (or even, minor) doctrine.

It is worth noting what John Lea wrote in the previous century, comparing the writings of the New Testament to Shakespear. The NT was preserved over the years in manuscript form, where hand-printed copies printed by hand needed to be made in order to preserve the text. Shakespear wrote 100 years after the inventions of the printing press. So how do they compare? It seems strange that the text of Shakespeare, which has been in existence less than two hundred years, should be so far more uncertain and corrupt than that of the New Testament, now over eighteen centuries old, during nearly fifteen of which it existed only in manuscript…With perhaps a dozen or twenty exceptions, the text of every verse in the New Testament may be said to be so far settled by general consent of scholars, that any dispute as to its readings must relate rather to the interpretation of the words than to any doubts respecting the words themselves. But in every one of Shakespeare’s thirty-seven plays there are probably a hundred readings still in dispute, a large portion of which materially affects the meaning of the passages in which they occur.

The point being, even though the Bible has been imperfectly preserved by man, there is probably not a single disputed passage in the Old or New Testaments whereupon a fundamental doctrine of the faith rests.

The Titles of the book of Exodus:

Jeremy Thomas: The Hebrew name of the book follows the traditional Jewish method of naming the book after the first words. Thus, the Hebrew name is we’elleh shemot, “now these are the names of” (Exod 1:1). When the Hebrew people returned from exile in Babylon the majority had lost use of the Hebrew language. As a result, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. Tradition says 72 men in separate cubicles made the translation resulting in the Septuagint (LXX). Although the titles are not inspired the translators gave this book the title ‘Exodus’ meaning “to go out” “to exit” “to depart” because the mass exodus of Israel from Egypt is the main event in the book. The word ‘Exodus’ comes from the Greek Translation of the Hebrew yatsa, which is found in Exodus 19:1.

Exodus 19:1 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out [yâtsâʾ (יָצָא)] of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai.

When the Jews were removed from the land in 572 b.c., a generation of them grew up not knowing Hebrew; they spoke Greek instead. So, at some point, it was appropriate to translate the Old Testament into Greek (this is called the Septuagint or the LXX). Tradition has it that 72 translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (this would have taken place between the testaments). This same word in the Greek LXX is ἔξοδος or Exodus.

This word exodus actually only occurs 3 times in the Bible and only in the New Testament, because it is a Greek word (most of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew; the New Testament is written in Koine Greek). Exodus is only found once only in the way that we understand it in Heb. 11:22, where it means departure. Exodos (ἔξοδος) [pronounced EX-ohd-oss], means, 1) exit, i.e. departure; a going forth 2) the close of one’s career, one’s final fate; 3) departure from life, decease. Strong’s #1841. Quite obviously, we have simply transliterated the word. It is also found in Luke 9:31 2Peter 1:15, where it is translated decrease. However, this word does occur 55 times in the Greek Old Testament (but only twice in the book of Exodus—19:1 23:16).

Typology:

Typology studies various men, statements, and acts found in the Old Testament; and how they look forward to future events (most of them look forward to Jesus Christ or to the crucifixion). Although typology was known to some writers of the New Testament (chiefly, the writer of Hebrews), this concept was developed more thoroughly many centuries later. An example of this is, in Gen. 22, God told Abraham to offer up his son, whom he loved, to God. This is typical of the crucifixion, where God offers up His Son as a substitute for us and for our sins.

A type does not know that it is a type; and Old Testament era theologians did not know what typology was or when they were reading about a type. So, chapters of the Old Testament which look forward to the crucifixion (Gen. 22 Psalm 22 Isa. 53) were not understood by ancient rabbis to be typical of the crucifixion. Gen. 22 is understood to be a series of literal events (which is how the Christian views it) which showed how obedient Abraham was to God and how much Abraham trusted God (which is all true). Typology understands all of these things about this passage; but further, understands that it looks forward to the future event of the crucifixion.

A prophecy, as differentiated from a type—like a Messianic passage—was known by Jewish theologians to be Messianic. The Jewish people understood that a Messiah would come to them, as prophesied in so many passages: He is David’s Greater Son, a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15–19); the Anointed or Messiah (Psalm 2); the One Who would sit at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1–3); etc.

Many confuse prophetical passages with typological passages. The difference is, the Jews generally understood prophetical passages to be prophetical. However, Jewish theologians did not understand typical passages to be typical. So, even though an ancient Jewish theologian may give a slightly different interpretation to Isa. 9:6–7 (For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over His kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.—ESV; capitalized); he would still understand this to be a Messianic passage.

On the other hand, although we can recognize typological passages today; ancient Jewish theologians did not understand them to refer to anything other than the intent of the original writer (the writer of a typological passage did not know that he was writing about a future event or about the Messiah). Again, Scripture has a human author and a Divine Author. There are times when the human author is thinking and writing one thing; but the Divine Author uses those same words to convey a different message. Isaiah, when writing Isa. 53, did not realize that He was writing about the Lord dying for our sins. However, when we read that passage today, it is obvious that is what it is about.

It is not unusual for people today to group prophetical and typical passages together today (such as, The Top 40 Most Helpful Messianic Prophecies), not realizing that these are different classifications. For further information, see Typology (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

The time between Genesis and Exodus:

Prophetically, this time frame was said to be 400 years, which is a round number. Gen. 15:13–14 Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.” (ESV) Their affliction will be for 400 years. If you have studied the book of Genesis, it is very difficult to assign the term affliction to the time when Joseph was prime minister in Egypt. He was the second highest political figure in Egypt; and his brothers were all guests of Pharaoh. But after a pharaoh arose who did not know Joseph, then the affliction of the Hebrew people began.

What is probably the case is, affliction is assigned to the entire time that the Jews were in Egypt, even though a portion of that time has the sons of Jacob enjoying blessing there.

Historically, it was said to be 400 years. Acts 7:6–7 And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them four hundred years. 'But I will judge the nation that they serve,' said God, 'and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place.' (ESV; Gen. 15:14; Exodus 3:12)

A figure of 430 years is given in Exodus 12:40–41 The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. (ESV)

We find the same figure, but slightly different time parameters, in Gal. 3:15–17 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. (ESV; Genesis 3:15; 21:12; 22:18)

In speaking to Abraham, God told him: “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Gen 15:15–16; ESV) So, in that era, a generation was roughly 100 years. This does not mean that there are only 4 generations in the land, and their children. People would get married, in their teens, 20's or 30's; and have 10 or more children. By the time they have had their last children, their oldest children are getting married and having their children. A set of parents would have children, grand children and great grandchildren, at the very least (not unlike today). They would just have a lot more of them (unlike today). Sometimes, a generation is viewed as how long it takes from a person to go from infant to producing children, which would be 25–40 years (for most people); others would view a generation as being the entire life of a person, a rounded average being about about 100 years.

The reference to 450 years in Acts 13:20, appears to be over a different time period, as we have 40 years in the desert in v. 18 and the destruction of the Canaanite nations in v. 19 (this would be Joshua’s advance against Canaan).

Acts 13:16–20 So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said: "Men of Israel and you who fear God, listen. The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. And for about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance. All this took about 450 years. And after that he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.”

We might put it together like this:

                     The time Israel was in Egypt                   400

                     Wandering in the wilderness                    40

                     Destroying of the seven nations               10

450 Years

There are two basic views of the time that Israel was in Egypt—one view has the people of Israel in Egypt for 215 years and another for 400–430 years. I don’t know that I want to spend a great deal of time exploring the first view; so it is linked there for your edification. Whereas the large population of Israel is easily produced in a period of 400 years; this is more difficult to justify over a period of 215 years. Mathematically, 215 years in Egypt may very well be impossible, when considering the population of Hebrews (approximately 2 million) who left Egypt, having begun with an initial population of 70.

In researching this on the web, nearly every website that I come across wants to assign Israel’s time in Egypt as 215 years. Many of them state that the persecution of Israel by Egypt began when Ishmael, Isaac’s half brother, treated him poorly at a very young age (which led to Hagar and her son being put out of Abraham’s home). Someone else places this beginning when Abraham and Sarah went to Egypt. At least two of these websites made references to the inherent sinfulness of man, who just wants to distort Scripture. While not disagreeing with that sentiment, I don’t see how that is really a good argument to be made for either viewpoint. In any case, every explanation which has Jacob and his sons in Egypt for only 215 years, somehow never provides a clear explanation for Exodus 12:40 The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years. (ESV) The LITV reads: And the time of the dwelling of the sons of Israel, which they dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. The Concordant Literal Version, which is apparently following the Samaritan Pentateuch, reads: Now the dwelling of the sons of Israel and their fathers who dwelt in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was four hundred thirty years. Then v. 41 adds: At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. (ESV) Then let me add, when it comes to the phrase on that very day, do you suppose that that very day refers back to the day that Ishmael made fun of Isaac, the day that Abraham and Sarah went to Egypt, or to the day that Jacob and his family all arrived in Egypt in Egyptian caravans? Which of those days to you think Israelites would have made note of in their chronological records? To understand the time frame of the sons of Israel living in Egypt to be anything other than 430 years, I would have to twist the logical explanation of that passage like a pretzel to achieve 215 years.

Traditionally, most theologians and commentators have adhered to the 430 year figure for the time that Jacob and his sons entered and then exited the land (Jeremy Thomas suggests from 1875–1445 b.c.). This 215 year figure seems to be a recent (and incorrect) development in many circles.

We ended the previous lesson in a discussion of the timeline of the sons of Israel being in Egypt; and it is my contention that they were in Egypt somewhere between 400 and 430 years.

The only difficult passage related to this is Gal. 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. (ESV) Does the Law come 430 years after the first time that God spoke to Abraham and gave him a promise? If that is the case, then that would throw every estimation of time there is out of whack. Or does this promise, given by God on several occasions, go back to the final time that God gave it to Jacob? Gen. 46:1–4 So Israel [= Jacob] took his journey with all that he had and came to Beersheba, and offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. And God spoke to Israel in visions of the night and said, "Jacob, Jacob." And he said, "Here I am." Then he said, "I am God, the God of your father. Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for there I will make you into a great nation. I myself will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you up again, and Joseph's hand shall close your eyes." (ESV) What I have bolded is the final promise that God makes to the patriarchs (specifically to Jacob), that he will be made into a great nation in Egypt (which aspect of God’s promise had not been given before); and that God would bring them up again out of Egypt. These promises interlock with the covenants given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on previous occasions. These promises form the basis for Jacob later desiring to be buried in the Land of Promise; and Joseph asking that his bones be taken into the Land of Promise when nation Israel exits Egypt.

If Israel and his descendants were in Egypt, 430 years to the day of their exodus, then God’s final promise to Jacob and God giving the Law to Moses would have been 430 years + 1–2 months, which is 430 years.

Exodus 1–2 covers a period of 429 years; Exodus 3–40 is year 430.

We are actually able to best set the date of the exodus from a passage in 1Kings:

1Kings 6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.

Solomon began his reign in 971 b.c. so he began to build the Temple in 967 b.c. So, if we work backward, 480 years brings us to the date of the Exodus, which was 1446/1445 b.c. These sets of dates allow us to determine all of the other dates.

1991 b.c.       1786            1717                 ∼1600                   1567

The overall view of Exodus:

There are two sections in Exodus: the historical progression of events in Exodus 1:1–15:21; followed by the giving of the Law and the system of laws for the people of Abraham (Exodus 15:22–40:38). The first half is narrative interspersed here and there with the words of God; and the second half are the words of God interspersed with a little narrative. So that there is no misunderstanding, all of the book of Exodus is the Word of God. By words of God, I am referring to God actually speaking to Moses, and Moses recording those words verbatim.

Each section can be divided into many subsections.

Although the power of God was on display in the book of Genesis, it was not on the level of the miracles found in the book of Exodus. The miracles of Exodus had to be more than of the parlor tricks by magicians designed to perplex a audience of a few hundred or a few thousand. The miracles of the Exodus had to convince an entire people to leave the place of their birth and to follow Moses to a place where they had never been. These miracles also had to be seen by all the Egyptians—allowing them to make a clear choice for or against the God of Israel. These miracles needed to be overwhelming in their size and scope.

One thing which we learn from this book is, miracles are not overwhelming enough to overturn a person’s volition which is stuck in negative. All of the Egyptians and all of the sons of Jacob saw these miracles. A majority of the Egyptians resisted them and did not follow the sons of Israel out of Egypt.

The miracles done by the hand of Moses were much different than the miracles done by the hand of Elijah or those done by our Lord in His earthly incarnation. Moses’ audience was an entire nation of two separate peoples. God, Who is fair, had to make certain that everyone in Egypt could make an informed choice—to stand with Moses (and the God of the Hebrews) or stand against him. In that way, do you see how he is a type of Christ? So the miracles of Moses had to affect everyone; everyone had to be able to experience them or, at the very least, see or hear about them.

When God does miracles in Scripture (some of which are in accordance with the laws of nature to some degree and some which are not), they are always appropriate to the audience that the miracles are for. This is true for all signs and miracles found in all the books of the Bible. God’s appeal by miracles to Moses out in the Midian wilderness are much different from God’s appeal to Egypt and Israel through the hand of Moses. Moses could appreciate the burning bush; he could appreciate his hand being made leprous; but these signs would not be appropriate to an audience of 2 million Israelites and however many million Egyptians. Moses never stands before all Israel and says, “Okay, now, watch my hand...”

Moses will live for a 120 years, and his life is divided into 3 time periods. From 1–40, he lives in Egypt and is raised up to become Pharaoh. From ages 40–80, he lives in Midian, in hiding because of the crime he commits. From ages 80–120, he will lead the children of Israel out of Egypt and to the Land of Promise. He will not enter the Land of Promise himself at any time (although he will be east of the Jordan River).

Exodus 1 provides a bridge between Gen. 50 and the book of Exodus. We jump forward in time about 320 years. For someone to write Exodus 1, they must be familiar with Genesis, otherwise, why try to write a bridge from there to the life of Moses?

Israel’s Suffering in Egypt:

When we last left Genesis, it was 320 years ago (roughly). Joseph had moved from slavery to a high position in Egypt, and he used the wisdom and guidance of God to guide Egypt through 7 years of economic depression. In fact, a famine was suffered all across the land, and Joseph’s father and brothers came to Egypt to live, because Egypt had preserved its excess grain. The sons of Jacob did not return to the Land of Promise, which decision was God’s geographical will for them. It is reasonable to assume that God never guided them, or their children to return to Canaan.

Exodus 1 ties the end of Genesis to the beginning of Exodus, bridging the 320 year gap between these two books. We are given almost no history of that interim time period, although there are some genealogies which tie these time periods together. My guess is, the names given to these generations between the times of Joseph and Moses (found in the early chapters of 1Chronicles) probably give us some clues as to their lives in that interim era.

Prophecies fulfilled in the book of Exodus:

God made these promises to Abraham: Gen. 15:13–16 Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

This is fulfilled in these passages:

Exodus 12:35–36 The people of Israel had also done as Moses told them, for they had asked the Egyptians for silver and gold jewelry and for clothing. And the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.

Exodus 12:40–41 The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. (ESV)

Here is a related promise, which was partially fulfilled during the time of the exodus, but not completely fulfilled until the book of Joshua (which picked up where Deuteronomy left off). Joseph trusted the promises of God (the covenants which God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) that he said this at his death:

Gen. 50:24–26 And Joseph said to his brothers, "I am about to die, but God will visit you and bring you up out of this land to the land that he swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." Then Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, "God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here." So Joseph died, being 110 years old. They embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

Even though we are not told about it, Joseph’s coffin (or, at bare minimum, his bones) had to be taken out of Egypt during the exodus. They would have remained with the people of Israel in the desert until they went into the land.

The Hebrew people went into the land as led by Joshua and took it (Joshua 1–12). Then Joseph’s bones were buried in the Land of Promise:

Joshua 24:32 As for the bones of Joseph, which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt, they buried them at Shechem, in the piece of land that Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money. It became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph.

This will be the final set of introductory lessons to the book of Exodus. Most of this lesson will be charts and doctrines.

Ray Stedman: [Regarding the Book of Exodus,] remember four things. The whole book centers around four great events. The first one is the Passover. Chapters one through fourteen lead up to it and climax in that great event. The second event is the crossing of the Red Sea, which is described for us in chapter fourteen. The third great event is the giving of the law at Sinai and the fourth is the construction of the tabernacle in the midst of the camp of Israel. These four events sum up the book of Exodus.

Tod Kennedy on the expanded theme of Exodus: God created Israel—his priest nation—from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He used Joseph to protect the nation during the beginning years in Egypt. Years later, God raised up Moses to lead the new nation out of Egypt and back into Canaan, their homeland. A short time out of Egypt, God gave Israel the Law. The Mosaic Law was the constitution for the theocracy. The first half of Exodus (1-19) finds them in Egypt and then takes them to Sinai. The second half is the record of God’s laws and instructions (20-40). Moses records God’s successes alongside Israel’s unbelief and failures.

Chart from Exploring Exodus by Wilbur Fields (which is equivalent to the College Press Bible Study). Taken from http://icotb.org/resources/Exodus.pdf accessed July 13, 2017. I should point out that there is nothing magic about these chapters or how they match up, as the chapter divisions were added long after the fact. I have cleaned up the table to make it more readable and edited slightly it as well.

God’s Man	Plagues	Pathway	Covenant	Tabernacle Instructions	Golden Calf	Tabernacle Construction
– 1 – Need for God’s man	– 7 – The conflict begins! Plague 1	– 13 – Demands and direction for the redeemed	– 19 – Preparations to receive God’s covenant	– 25 – Tabernacle Instructions (Ark, table, lampstand)	– 32 – Rupture of covenant	– 35 – Offerings and workmen
– 2 – Preparation of God’s man	– 8 – Plagues 2, 3 & 4	– 14 – Baptized unto Moses	– 20 – The Ten Command-ments	– 26 – Enclosures (curtains, boards, bars, veil, screen)	– 33 – God and Israel at odds	– 36 – Things enclosed
– 3 – Call of God’s man	– 9 – Plagues 5, 6 & 7	– 15 – From song to bitterness	– 21 – God’s covenant ordinances	– 27 – Altar and court	– 34 – Renewal of covenant	– 37 – Inside furniture
– 4 – Hesitancy of God’s man	– 10 – Plagues 8 & 9	– 16 – Bread from heaven	– 22 – God’s covenant ordinances	– 28 & 29 – Priest’s garments and consecration		– 38 – Outside furniture; total cost
– 5 – Resistence to God’s man	– 11 – The last warning!	– 17 – Two tests: water and war	– 23 – God’s covenant ordinances	– 30 – Incense, etc.		– 39 – Priests’ garments, finished work presented
– 6 – Strengthening of God’s man	– 12 – Plague 10 over and out	– 18 – Jethro and judges	– 24 – Covenant ratified	– 31 – Craftsmen, Sabbath		– 40 – All set up; glory of God

Wordcloud for Exodus 1–15 (using the NKJV)

Wordcloud for Exodus 16–40 (using the NKJV). Notice the big keywords that are missing: Pharaoh, Egypt, Egyptians, land and hand. New keywords: tabernacle, gold, made, make. Notice the common themes: Lord, Moses, Israel.

Previously in the weekly study of Genesis, I used the Modern KJV translation. For the book of Exodus, I will use the New King James Version (unless otherwise noted), which is a superior (but not perfect) translation.

Whereas, many chapters and sections of Genesis could be organized into chiasmi, I have not found the same to be true in the book of Exodus (even though there are still commentators who are able to find chiasmi throughout the book). I think the reason for this is, a chiasmos makes a long passage of Scripture easier to memorize. Even though it is clear that the book of Exodus will be in written form (at some point); the average person would not have had a copy of this book (or of any other). To learn and preserve truth, a person would have to memorize a sacred book.

Exodus 1:1–4 Now these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt; each man and his household came with Jacob: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

What we find here in vv. 1–4 is not a list of all the sons of Jacob nor is it a list of the tribes of Israel. It is a list of those who went with Jacob to Egypt, bringing their own families with them. That is why there are 11 men named, and Joseph’s name is left out, as Joseph was already living in Egypt. Joseph had sent for them all.

The sons are named according to their birth mother and birth order. Leah had 4 sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah); then there was a time interval, during which, she gave her personal servant to Jacob to impregnate. Then she had two more sons (Issachar, Zebulun). Her six sons are named first. You may recall that Jacob had been tricked into marrying Leah, the older sister.

Leah’s sister, Rachel, had two sons. Joseph was already there in Egypt, so his name is not given in this list. She died when giving birth to Benjamin. Benjamin was brought to Egypt with his father; so his name is listed next. Rachel is the sister that Jacob loved.

Rachel did not, at first, have any children. In desperation, she gave her personal maid to Jacob and she produced two sons for Jacob: Dan and Naphtali (the idea is similar to our concept of a surrogate mother today).

Seeing this, Leah gave her personal maid to Jacob, and produced two sons by her: Gad and Asher.

The sons are grouped by their mothers, but with Joseph being left out.

Exodus 1:5 All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons (for Joseph was in Egypt already).

Jacob and his 11 sons account for 12 of those. Then there is Leah, the two personal maids, Dinah and at least 11 wives (assuming that all sons were married by this time). That indicates that there were about 54 children (and grandsons) of the 11 sons of Jacob (although some of this number could be unnamed sisters of the 11 sons).

There were 33 sons, grandsons, great grandsons and daughters from Leah (Gen. 46:15). Going back to that passage and counting them up, 2 sons of Judah died; which would imply that there was Dinah and another daughter of Leah to take us to 33.

Zilpah had 2 sons, and they had 12 sons and daughter; and 2 grandsons. 16 in all (Gen. 46:18).

Rachel had 2 sons, Joseph and Benjamin. Joseph had 2 sons (in Egypt) and Benjamin had 10 sons. That gives us 14 who ultimately came from Rachel (Gen. 46:22).

Bilhah had 2 sons who had a total of 5 sons, making 7 in all.

33 + 16 + 14 + 7 = 70. So this is where the 70 comes from (which number appears to include Jacob).

We can account for quite a number of these people in 1Chron. 2:1–7, which is really the line of Judah. The other sons are mentioned in that chapter, but their wives and children are not. However, the lines of the other sons are found in 1Chron. 5–8. They are listed all by name (except for their wives) in Gen. 46. We were able to account for 66 who had been descended from Jacob (Gen. 46:26); and add in Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, that takes us to 70 (Gen. 46:27). So my assumption here is, the descendants of Jacob include Jacob, Joseph and Joseph’s two sons.

The Exodus passage gives us a summation including everyone, and it seems to have come from Gen. 46:27.

Gen. 46:27 And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two. All the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy. (ESV)

Exodus 1:5 All the descendants of Jacob were seventy persons; Joseph was already in Egypt. (ESV)

Exodus 1:6 And Joseph died, all his brothers, and all that generation.

The book of Exodus here bridges the gap between the time of Joseph and the time of Moses.

In Genesis, we only had accounts of the deaths of Jacob and Joseph.

Every generation gives way to the next generation. Death is inevitable; and we will either meet Jesus as our Judge or as our Savior. God made this our choice. We may like that; we may not; but life is what it is (and so is death).

Life is filled with limiting factors—we will all die; we cannot breathe underwater, we cannot fly, we cannot drink salt water; we can only go for so long without food, water or sleep. We accept and live with these limiting factors. Who created the earth and the universe and Who He is something which we may or may not like; but God is Who He is. Just as we learn to adapt to the physical realities of our lives; we should also learn to adjust to the spiritual realities of life as well.

Exodus 1:7 But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.

The Hebrew people prospered in Egypt during their tenure there. They had large families and they multiplied and spread across the land allotted to them. The word land does not necessarily refer to the land of Egypt, as it appears that the Jews were segregated in Egypt from the beginning (which was God’s intention).

In Exodus 1:1–6, Moses listed the sons of Jacob who moved to Egypt.

Exodus 1:7 But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.

By this chapter, there were two ways of referring to the Jews—those descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were either called children of Israel (literally, sons of Israel) or they were called Hebrews. I often use the designation Jew (s) out of habit; but that word actually comes into being much later in their history.

Israel (God prevails; contender; soldier of God) was the name that God gave to Jacob; and, despite his many failures as the patriarch of his family, Jacob’s descendants were called the sons of Israel. Israel, by the way, refers to Jacob—not to nation Israel, which does not exist at this time. There is no nation Israel when Jacob (Israel) moves to Egypt. There is only Jacob, his sons, his grandsons, his daughters, his wives and the wives of his sons and grandsons. There is a point in time when God uses the term Israel in a national sense; that will occur in the book of Exodus.

Many times when a new translation came out, people would complain; and, believe or not, this translation the children of Israel is a small bone of contention. Literally, this should be translated sons of Israel. Is that really a problem? No, it is not! Wherever we read, sons of Israel, we should generally understand this to mean the descendants of Jacob. Dinah, and any other daughters (or granddaughters) are not being left out of this designation. So, for future reference, I will often use the words sons of Israel; but what I mean is, the descendants of Jacob.

Interestingly enough, we find the term Hebrew about 15 times in the book of Exodus; but only one other time in the remaining books of Moses. The term Hebrew meant one thing in the book of Genesis (where it is found 6 times); but here, in the book of Exodus, it will mean something different.

The term Jew (or, Jews) is a very late term applied to the people of Israel. We do not find it until 2Kings 25:25. This seems to be applied when the Chaldeans were going to overrun the people of God and force them out of their land (in the northern kingdom). It is related to the tribe of Judah, which became, at some point, the only known tribe of Israel, apart from the Levites (descendants from the other tribes exist and some Jewish people today believe that they belong to these other tribes; but only God knows who belongs to which tribe for certain).

Back to our text.

Exodus 1:7 But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.

So, the family of Jacob (Israel) has moved to Egypt and, for a time, they enjoy both autonomy and great prosperity. As a result, they enjoy a population explosion. From the time that the sons of Jacob move to Egypt in the final chapters of Genesis to the time that Moses leads them out of Egypt, they grow from a population of 70 (+ their wives) to about 2 million.

Exodus 1:8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.

How does a king rise up who does not know Joseph? For whatever reason, the history of Joseph in Egypt was removed, to the point where a Pharaoh is raised up and he does not know Joseph. Most pharaohs are going to know history, geography and politics; as well as how to read and write in several languages. These are highly educated men, for the most part. These things would make up the basic knowledge that a pharaoh would have—their basic preparatory training. But this Pharaoh does not come with that knowledge. This suggests that the history of Egypt was changed or distorted; and that the history of Joseph and what he did was removed from Egypt.

Now, a very reasonable question would be, why would the Egyptians remove Joseph (and his people) from their history? Or, why would Egyptians develop a dislike for Joseph later on? Although Joseph saved many families of Egypt alive, he did this by bartering for their silver, animals, and farms. So, the people of his era appreciated that, as he kept them alive; but their descendants, lacking any claim to the land or to any inheritance, may not have been so grateful (years 3–7 of the great famine and Joseph’s actions are found in Gen. 47:13–27).

Let me suggest a possible set of circumstances which occur many decades after this: an Egyptian Pharaoh, attempting to sound like a populist, could have easily distorted what Joseph did, and removed him from history, at the approval of the people of his era (this is pure speculation on my part, to explain how a king could arise and not know Joseph). There were different dynasties with different agendas which rose up in Egypt; but all we need to know is, a king rose up who did not know Joseph (or, perhaps, did not acknowledge Joseph as the national hero and patriot that he was). Joseph dies and, apparently, his true history as a savior of Egypt does not continue with Egypt.

Could a pharaoh arise who vilifies Joseph (which later generations may have done); and say, “Who is this Joseph? Do I know a Joseph? I should say not!” Joseph could have been portrayed as the man who placed all Egyptian farmers into bondage to the Pharaoh of Joseph’s time (Gen. 47:18–26). This would have been a very populist approach.

People in this life can be notoriously unhappy; or distressed with certain contemporary or historical figures—taking the norms and values of their day and applying those norms to people from many generations back. We have seen our own founding fathers of the United States of America vilified, as many of them owned slaves. Many confederate statues have been torn down or removed and relocated; and threats on the statues of founding fathers made. The leaders of such movements try (and often succeed) in making one’s opinion a binary choice. (1) You support slavery, wish that we still had slaves, and you want all such statues to remain to honor these men for owning slaves; or (2) you oppose slavery and therefore, you want the statues of all slave owners removed (because such statues are representative of honoring the men; and, therefore, honoring slavery). No nuance allowed.

Therefore, it is not hard to imagine a generation arising—even the next generation—who vilify Joseph. They are being taxed at 20% (Gen. 47:23–24), this money all goes to the government, and this can upset those paying the taxes—those who are a generation or more removed from the great famine. If they understand Joseph to have instituted those taxes, apart from the actual historical context; then they may hold him in low esteem (all of this is conjecture on my part).

Just as likely is, a pharaoh arises who removes the history of previous pharaohs; and what remains is distorted. Joseph is somehow lost in this re-shuffling (or, he is vilified).

The only reason that I suggest such an approach is, when would a king arise who really did not know Joseph? It seems more reasonable to me that Joseph was purposely excised from history or purposely given a bad reputation by later generations.

In any case, what remains in Egypt is the Hebrews, who are increasing rapidly in population; and who are separated from the rest of the Egyptians. How they got there is either distorted by or not known to the Pharaoh who arose who did not know Joseph.

As an aside, I can guarantee you that, while the Jews lived in Egypt, unharmed and allowed their freedom, they were prosperous and Egypt was prosperous. As God promised Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.” And when they turned against the Hebrew people, life, no doubt, became worse for the Egyptians.

Remember how this chapter begins, speaking of 70 Hebrew people; so, how do Egyptians feel now that there are tens of thousands of Hebrews? They have not integrated into their society; they have kept to themselves. They reject the gods of Egypt and their worship their own God. It is easy to vilify such a people, even though there may not actually be a good reason for doing so.

Let me suggest that, those first few generations of Israelites enjoyed great prosperity, a great increase in livestock, and a population explosion. The Egyptians—even if their standard of living is higher than it has ever been—may still look upon the Israelites with suspicions or even jealousy.

We have that sort of thing occurring today in America. People have got more things and a greater access to foods and personal comfort than ever before in American history; and yet, they see these CEO’s or Wall Street traders or even politicians; and they develop an anger which is based upon jealousy and covetousness.

I know the life that my parents led when they were younger; I know the life that they led as adults with children; and I know my life today. I see a great increase in wealth and possessions over that scope of time. Furthermore, I know from doctrine and from common sense that there is no reason to be jealous of anyone else, even if they have much more than I have. But some people cannot see things in this way. They themselves may be a part of a generation of greater prosperity than has ever been (and they are); but they still set their eyes upon people with a massive amount of wealth, and they allow themselves to be disturbed with that.

My point being is, Egypt, during this time, may be greatly prosperous; but this does not keep them from have very negative attitudes towards the Hebrew people in their midst.

The people of Israel (Jacob) had been living in Egypt for about 340 years. Even though, at the very beginning, Joseph, a son of Jacob, delivered these people from famine, reasons had been found to place the Hebrew people into slavery. This will be described in vv. 7–11.

Exodus 1:7 But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them. (ESV)

As we have studied, the Egyptians were more than likely also enjoying great prosperity. As long as they gave respect to the Hebrew people and to their God, God blessed them as well. However, many people are blessed and they have not even an ounce of appreciation for it.

The sons of Jacob were given an area known as Goshen, in northern Egypt; and they had filled that area up. We do not know if they expanded beyond that or if the Hebrews were found owning land outside of that territory. My educated guess would be that this did not happen, based upon the Egyptian norms and standards which required separation between the Egyptian people and the Hebrews.

Exodus 1:8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. (ESV)

This new king may have literally not known any history at all about the Hebrew people; or the history that he knew was distorted, so that he did not know the Egyptian patriotism of Joseph, but a villainized caricature instead. Or, as we have previously discussed, the king himself chose to distort Joseph’s place in Egyptian history. Whatever the case, I do not doubt that history had been erased or distorted.

Exodus 1:9 And he said to his people, “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we;...

This one speaking is the new king of Egypt; and he is apparently speaking to a group of Egyptians—possibly a large group of elders. There may have been a number of meetings involved here. Perhaps, these are the earliest townhall meetings? Or, far more likely, this is Pharaoh meeting with the elders and leaders of the land.

The sons of Israel were living in the same land, but segregated from the Egyptians. Although there may have been some Egyptian women who married into the Jewish people (we know of at least one), for the most part, there was no intermingling between the Hebrews and the Egyptians. As was the custom in that day and time, a woman brought into the family from the outside became a part of that family (which would have included the worship of the Hebrew God, Y^ehowah).

In the book of Genesis, we were given two examples of a separation which was probably maintained between the Hebrews and the Egyptians: (1) they did not eat together; and (2) the vocation of the Hebrews (raising cattle) was disgusting to the Egyptians (which is one reason why the Pharaoh who knew Joseph placed the people in Goshen, separate from the Egyptian people).

You will recall that when Joseph had his brothers over for lunch (before they knew who he was), he even ate at a separate table from them. When the sons of Joseph first spoke to Pharaoh, they were to make clear that they were shepherds, which apparently caused Pharaoh to give them land which is very separate from the Egyptian people.

Exodus 1:9–10 And he [the Pharaoh who did not know Joseph] said to his people, “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.”

Throughout man’s history, prejudice and racism has been used as weapons. This has been particularly true of attacks upon Jews (even in the United States, there are far more racial attacks against Jews than against Muslims).

This new pharaoh has made some observations which are obvious to everyone. The Jewish population is growing by leaps and bounds. He warns that, if Egypt is ever attacked by enemies, the Jews might just join up with them and attack the Egyptians from the inside. They would be a great force to be reckoned with.

Pharaoh uses a strawman argument, placing an assumption on top of a possible occurrence, and then says, “And therefore, we must act.” What he actually suggested is, they must be shrewd when dealing with the Jews. But what he means is ruthless.

We are not given a series of intervening events which lead to this point, so I will do some speculation here.

If you will recall the events from Gen. 47, the people of Egypt, due to a 7-year famine, essentially gave their animals, homes and land to Pharaoh as a result. What happened was, Pharaoh could not actually take physical possession of all their animals and land; so the people continued to take care of their own animals and land, but, were charged 20% off the top that was paid to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:24). What Joseph did saved these people and they were grateful (Gen. 47:25); but generations die off and new generations rise up.

Let me suggest that a generation rises up, and they do not like paying this 20% tax to Pharaoh. Who do they hold responsible for this tax? Joseph, of the Hebrew people. The circumstances of events which took place are often not important to later generations (as a very wise man once said, history begins for most people the day they are born). Also, bear in mind, the people of Jacob are not actually subject to this tax (as Joseph was able to take care of them with the grain that had been stored).

A new pharaoh also rises up, and he takes their complaints into consideration, and he says to his people, “I do not know any Joseph!” (who is, by this time, dead). And the people of Egypt cheer him.

At this time, the Egyptians would be taxed and the Hebrews were not subject to the same taxation. The Hebrew people seem to be getting stronger and stronger, and they never integrated into Egyptian society. They blame this Joseph fellow—a Hebrew—for these events. So a hero to one generation becomes villainized by another. And out of this, a plot is hatched for the Egyptians to enslave the Hebrew people. Bear in mind, much of this is speculation. I am simply filling in some of the history which could have led to the enslavement of the Jewish people. The idea being, it could have happened this way. Certainly, another generation could have arisen which knew absolutely nothing of the previous history (not even a distorted version of it). In any case, the Hebrew people were enslaved simply because they were separate from Egyptian society (which could not have been an easy thing to do). The enslavement could have been sudden; and they could have eased into it, telling the Hebrew people, “You are living on Egyptian land; it is time that you paid a price for that.”

However this came about, at some point, the Hebrew people became full-on slaves to the Egyptians, to the point of building entire cities for the Egyptians. How exactly this came about, we are never told—we are simply given the barest of hints. But the Egyptians were a very well-organized people; and it is possible that this began with an edict from the king: “All Hebrew persons will now be slaves to the king of Egypt.” There would be enough Egyptian military types to make this stick; and examples would have been made of those who resisted.

We should bear in mind that each generation is responsible for its own response to God and His plan (known in that era as the way). So, there is no reason to assume that the Hebrew people, at the time of their enslavement, were blameless. How many of them adopted Egyptian idolatry? How many of them abandoned their God? Let me suggest that the pain that they suffered was not completely undeserved.

Exodus 1:11 Therefore they [Pharaoh and the Egyptian people] set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses.

The Hebrews were made into slaves and, interestingly enough, they built store or supply cities. What was probably stored in these cities was grain and other foods which could be preserved. It is suggested by some that Egyptian troops, when going into Palestine and Syria, would stop at these cities in order to put together their supplies for such a trip.

It certainly does strike me as a coincidence that Joseph built storage barns for the storage of grain; and the Egyptians are having their Hebrew slaves build entire cities with roughly the same intent. Was this intentional? Did the Egyptians see this as poetic justice? Or was this the ultimate in historical irony? Joseph, looking out for the Egyptian people, built grain storage; and now the Hebrew slaves were doing roughly the same thing for the Egyptian people.

There is yet another point of possible intersection between the acts of Joseph in Egypt back in Genesis and the events which led to the enslavement of the Hebrew people. The Egyptian government would have found itself with a great surplus of money, based upon what Joseph had done. Some Pharaohs no doubt decided to put this money toward building projects—like great storage cities. Such projects require both cash (gold, silver) and very large labor pools.

Again, we do not know exactly how the people of Jacob were enslaved, and which steps led to this, apart from a generation of Egyptians rising up with no appreciation for Joseph or for his people.

Israel In Egypt, 1867 (oil on canvas) by Sir Edward John Poynter; from Fine Art America; accessed May 23, 2018.

Exodus 1:12 But the more they [the Egyptian people] afflicted them [the Hebrew people], the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel.

As we see in our own nation, many times when a political solution is offered and implemented, it often does not fix the problem that it claims it will fix. They placed the Hebrews into slavery, and yet, the sons of Jacob continued to grow in population—exactly the thing that this pharaoh was trying to stop from occurring.

The sons of Jacob never really seemed to catch on to the idea that Pharaoh was concerned because of their numbers.

Exodus 1:13 So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor.

We have a curious phrase at the end of vv. 13 & 14: with rigor. This is actually the preposition b^e (בְּ) [pronounced b^eh], (in, into, through; at, by, near, on, upon; with, before, against; by means of; among; within); affixed to the masculine singular noun perek (פֶּרֶ) [pronounced PEH-rehk], which means harshness, severity, cruelty; crushing; oppression, tyranny. Strong’s #6531 BDB #827. Usually, the NKJV is an excellent translation. Here, it is not. We should understand this to mean, with oppression; in severity.

At some point in time, the Egyptian pressed the Hebrews into slavery. They had moved there when Joseph was the Prime Minister of Egypt; and enough years had passed where Joseph was unknown to the present-day leadership. This can simply be the next generation. Even though a wise generation will try to pass along their wisdom to their sons and daughters; their sons and daughters can reject their wisdom as old fashioned and go down another path. We have a considerable number of people in the United States who have done just that.

One way that evil can triumph in a nation, is when the people do not know their own history or do not have an accurate understanding of the facts. We have that in our own nation today. There are a significant number of young people who have not even the slightest clue about the founding of our nation; nor do they understand the great blessings that God has given our nation. If I were to guess, easily half of the millennials in the United States do not recognize the blessings which God has given them and this nation; and they do not understand where these blessings ultimately come from. On top of that, let me suggest that half of these millennials do not even recognize or appreciate the great blessings that they themselves have. Those millennials who advocate for a more socialistic system of government do not really have any idea what it is that they support.

If you have ever studied the Millennium, you may have wondered, how can man, living in perfect environment, under the reign of Jesus Christ, reject God and rebel against Him? The United States is the most blessed country in human history, and yet, easily a third of those living in America think that America is a terrible place (or, at least, somewhat bad); and that there are dozens of nations where life is better. There are even some who believe that free education and free healthcare in Cuba are great and wonderful things and superior to what we have in America. They even think that Cuban education and healthcare is something that we, as a nation, ought to aspire to (no doubt, American education is in free fall right now). A person cannot be more uneducated as to believe that they would be better off in Cuba; and yet, millions in our country actually believe these kinds of things. And they will quickly cite this or that article on the internet of the best places in the world to live, and point out, with a tremendous lack of pride and patriotism, that the United States is not even in the top 5.

I recently saw a survey that had been done, where more millennial Americans believe in socialism than capitalism—and this is with a free and unfettered internet that they believe this. We could, in as little as 20 years, have an American dramatically different from the one which we grew up in. We could be as socialist as Russia, if not more so, with a more controlled press (right now, only 5% of the media is even close to being fair or accurate).

The point I am making is this: Joseph was a great and patriotic man in the nation of Egypt. He loved his adopted country and did what he believed was best for it. His memory should have been preserved, and his people should have been respected. However, God will use the fact that this history was not preserved among the Egyptian people against them. All of the evil foisted upon the Hebrew people by the Egyptians will be dealt with; there will come a reckoning.

Here is what we have already studied:

Exodus 1:6–7 Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.

Israel was given a relatively isolated area in which to live (quite possibly because they were shepherds); and they grew and expanded in this area. They remained separate from the Egyptian people.

Exodus 1:8–10 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, "Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land."

A king in Egypt arises who either does not know Joseph or knows a distorted historical account of Joseph. This king is antisemitic. So he suggests that, in the event of a war, that the Israelites might rise up and join the enemies of the Egyptians.

Exodus 1:11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses.

So the Egyptians enslaved the Jewish people; and caused them to build two storage cities for Pharaoh.

Exodus 1:12–13 But the more they [the people of Israel] were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves... (ESV)

The Egyptian king, who presented slavery of the Jews as the solution to their population explosion and to their potential lack of loyalty, actually exacerbates these problems. These things are not actual problems for the Egyptians; but, like so many politicians today, he defines as a problem—something that is not really a problem—and then develops a program to fix this problem—again, something which is not actually a problem. The sons of Jacob in Egypt have never been a problem for the Egyptians. In fact, Egyptian no doubt enjoyed great prosperity and peace, because of their relationship with the Hebrew people.

An example of fixing a non-existent problem: there was recently a president of the United States who, as a newly elected president, had a lot of good will. Therefore, he decided to fix the economy (which, by the time that he took office, was actually in good shape and recovering on its own). He then passed a massive spending bill (called the Stimulus), which was a greater stimulus than had ever been passed before. This did not fix or improve the economy, which had already begun to recover on its own (if left alone, recessions often turn into a rebound economy).

FDR, earlier in American history, inherited a depression; and then proceeded to do everything possible to fix it, causing our economy to remain in a depression for the next decade (no other allied nation suffered a great depression during this time). A president previous to FDR, from the same century, also faced a similar downturn in the economy. That president did nothing; and the economy rebounded. Most people do not know about that economic downturn; but they do know about the Great Depression; which many believe was made great by a president who would not stop fiddling with the economy.

So, the king of Egypt inherited this large population of Hebrews—who were a blessing to Egyptian society—and he villainized them and made slaves of them. He took something which was not a problem and “fixed it.” He took a situation which was good and made it lousy.

Exodus 1:14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage—in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor [that is, with severity, oppression and hardship].

They refers to the Egyptians; and their and them refers to the sons of Israel.

The service expected by the Egyptians was most difficult; and the Hebrew people, for many reasons, were made to feel like outcasts in the land.

No doubt, Satan was involved here as well, as Satan seems to be quite able to whip up antisemitism under any circumstance. Bear in mind, we know, based upon the first two chapters of Job, that God would often direct the attention of the angels (including Satan) towards specific people. If given the opportunity, Satan would go to great lengths to attack and harm the people God upheld. This is how Satan thinks. All that God favors, he despises.

We see this very thing today. The present-day Israel is a tiny postage stamp of land. In the Middle East, it perhaps takes up 0.2% of the entire land there. And yet, there are nations (Iran) and peoples (the Palestinians) who see tiny nation Israel as some sort of an existential problem. There are large groups of Muslims who see the destruction of the Jewish people as almost a religious rite. Many of them believe in the final solution as much as the Nazis did.

In 2015, in the United Nations, Arab League secretary-general Nabil al-Arabi said, “The continued Israeli occupation of Arab and Palestinian territory is the main challenge before the international community to achieve peace and stability in the region and the world...This occupation represents the main cause for the spread of terrorism and extremist ideology in the region.” From CNS News, accessed October 17, 2017. This sort of talk is nonsensical; and yet, there are large groups of people (Muslims and liberals, primarily) who actually believe it.

The problem in the Middle East is Islam and the hard-heartedness of so many Muslims. That the Jews have a tiny country in the midst of them is not some great problem or threat.

Only a distorted, Satanic logic could conclude that one of the smallest nations in the Middle East is somehow responsible for the spread of terrorism and extremist ideology in the region. Yet, the concept of terrorism and extremist ideology is endemic to the Islamic faith.

If you understand the Bible, Satan, and God’s chosen people, the Jews—all of this makes perfect sense. Not only should we understand antisemitism, but we should expect it to be a part of human history until the end of human history. If we ever came to a point in history when there was not a considerable amount of hatred directed towards the sons of Jacob, then that should be confusing to us as Christians. So, even though there are numerous holocaust museums, and people who sincerely say, “We will never forget;” extremist ideology which targets the Jewish people will not end. We have already studied antisemitism back in Gen. 13 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

As an aside, at the time that I write this, the United States is the most powerful nation in the world with the greatest military in the world. This is not just a happy happenstance for Americans, but it also represents God entrusting the United States with great responsibility. When we stop, as a nation, acting responsibly with faith towards God; then this great power will be removed from us. Great Britain, a most recent client nation on the world stage, also had the greatest military in the world and ruled over perhaps a fifth of the world. They brought both law and order and Christianity to nations all over the globe. But there came a time when the Brits no longer understood their place in the world; and their power and influence on the world stage was diminished from being the greatest, most powerful nation on earth; to becoming just another nation. This same thing could happen to the United States—and it could happen virtually overnight.

As an application, let me explain what we have done right in our history. At the end of World War II, General Douglas MacArthur called for Bibles and missionaries to be sent to the nations which we defeated. He ruled over Japan, our great enemy in that war, for a time. There were two very important results to come out of this (and subsequent military efforts). Japan became a staunch ally of the United States; with a Christian population there that survives to this day (there are about 2–3 million Christians in Japan); and the nation of South Korea also has a great, Christian population (South Korea is nearly 30% Christian and they send out many missionaries throughout Asia).

Here is what we have done wrong in our recent history: we went into Afghanistan and Iraq with the intention of imposing a democracy on these people. Now, whereas democracy is a wonderful thing, what would have been far more important would have been to allow missionaries into these countries; and to allow servicemen to freely evangelize the people (when off-duty, of course). Interestingly enough, the president who placed us into those two countries was both a Christian and an historian; and yet, the fundamental fact that Christianity is key to a long-lasting relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq, eluded him. In fact, evangelism was actually discouraged in these countries. As a result, 10 years later, we are still in both nations and it is chaotic in both nations. The evil ideology of Islam cannot be excised from these nations; but it can be replaced. I write this in the years 2017 and 2018, and at this point, it is unclear whether any president will actually be able to look at our recent history and understand why our presence in Japan and South Korea worked; but why it is not working in Afghanistan or Iraq. If we want to fix the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, we send in Bibles and missionaries. A former president on many occasions, has said, “There is no military solution.” In that he was right. But there is no political solution either; the only solution is a spiritual one!

If we follow the doctrine of, we broke it so we must fix it; the only true fix is the truth of Jesus Christ.

It may seem that I have gone far afield here from our study, but what we are studying in Egypt is the result of antisemitism. The people of Egypt have lost or distorted their history; and now they have, for many years, used their antisemitism to exploit the Hebrew people. If we allow that to happen in the United States, then our nation will plunge from the great perch of power that we now occupy (no doubt, many would like to see this happen—including some people in our own nation).

These actions of the Egyptian people and royalty against the sons of Jacob will result in the destruction of nation Egypt. They will go from being one of the most powerful nations in the world to a weak and destroyed nation. That is a portion of the history which we will study in the book of Exodus. However, what happens to nation Egypt is just a sideshow in this book.

Exodus 1:12–14 But the more they [the Egyptians] afflicted them [the Hebrew people], the more they multiplied and grew stronger and stronger. So the Egyptians were abhorred by the children of Israel; and the Egyptians ruled over the Israelites with rigour and made their lives bitter with hard labour in working clay and making bricks and with all the toils of the field, according to the several kinds of service to which they forcibly subjected them. (Charles Thompson translation)

Exodus 1:15a Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives [lit., midwives of the Hebrews]...

This is the first use of the term Hebrew in the book of Exodus. It was used many times before in Genesis (Gen. 39:13–14, 17 40:15 41:12 43:32). Hebrew is the word ʿIb^erîy (עִבְרִי) [pronounced ģih^b-VREE], which means one from beyond; and is transliterated Hebrew, Eberite. Strong’s #5680 BDB #720. In this verse, we have a form of this word.

In the book of Genesis, the word Hebrew could not have been exclusively applied to the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because that would have suggested that the Egyptians actually had a cultural imperative concerning the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Joseph, as Prime Minister of Egypt, could not eat with Hebrews because that sort of intermixing was not allowed—Gen. 43:32). This term simply referred to people who came from the east and settled in Canaan (or, in perhaps any area west of the Euphrates River). It is very likely that the name actually was applied to the sons of Eber, from whom Abraham was descended.

If the term Hebrew simply refers to people who have come across the river, we have a similar term which is used today: ex-pats; which term is used in many different countries, where Americans (or Europeans or whatever) have come to live in another country (many times, they simply move to another country to retire there).

Early on, as we have studied, various groups of people spread out over the world. Then God told Abraham, who was living in the east, to travel west (eventually, to the Land of Promise—Canaan). He was considered to have come from beyond, and was called a Hebrew as early as Gen. 14:13. It is a designation which stuck with his family in particular. So, even though, strictly speaking, Arab groups of Genesis would have been known as Hebrews, once we get to Exodus 1, this term has begun to attach itself only to the people of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Jacob actually returned to the east, and found two wives and two mistresses there, and then returned to Canaan, having 11+ children who were born in the east. So this made him even more of an outsider.

However, it appears that it is in Egypt where this name is applied to the people of Jacob; and where it sticks (see Gen. 39:14, 17 41:12). There would have been a wider application then, but it eventually narrowed to just the sons of Jacob.

Exodus 1:15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives [lit., midwives of the Hebrews], of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah;...

According to Barnes, Shiphrah and Puah are Egyptian names and he believes them to be Egyptian women.

The Bible Query: [A]n Egyptian Papyrus in the Brooklyn Museum (35.1446), written approximately 1540 B.C., mentions a Shiphrah. This Shiphrah lived over a hundred years before the Shiphrah mentioned in Exodus.

We would not expect these to be the same person; but this simply indicates that this is a legitimate Egyptian name. Therefore, these are not Hebrew midwives, but midwives of or midwives to the Hebrew people. I am using the NKJV throughout, which is an excellent translation; but it is not perfect (many translations have Hebrew midwives as the translation).

It is likely, therefore, that these Hebrew midwives are not Hebrew midwives, but Egyptian midwives ministering to the Hebrew people.

It is significant that these women’s names are given; but the name of the king of Egypt is not given. Based upon the events of this chapter, these women clearly believe in the Hebrew God (and therefore are saved); and the Egyptian Pharaoh did not. The names of the midwives are obviously written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 13:8 20:12, 15 21:27). The choices that these women make have eternal repercussions whereas the Pharaoh of this generation was just another bit player in life.

Exodus 1:15–16 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives [lit., midwives of the Hebrews], of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.”

Pharaoh speaks to the two midwives. We do not know if he does this directly or whether it is through an intermediary. We do not know if Pharaoh had additional meetings with other midwives, or if these two women oversaw all those in this profession. What appears to me is, Pharaoh called in all of the midwives, however many that there were, and spoke to them directly. These two women, in the realm of spiritual things, stood out from the rest.

Pharaoh apparently believes the propaganda that he has been spewing, that the Hebrew people may align themselves with some foreign enemy and go to war against Egypt; so he is going to reduce the number of Hebrew men to contend with.

What is far more important than the original heritage of these midwives is their trust in the God of the Hebrews. No doubt, they saved many Hebrew children by what they did.

Pharaoh tells these women to kill any male infants of the Hebrews. Obviously, this puts these women in quite a difficult spot. They must either commit murder and obey Pharaoh; or spare the lives of the children and disobey him (a crime for which they could be harshly punished).

This is how evil works. It does whatever it can to make believers sin. We have had this recently with the homosexual movement. It was presented, at first, as people who just were born this way, and that all they wanted was to live normally, expressing their homosexual tendencies (there is no such thing as normalcy for homosexuals). However, now, a person who does not believe in same-sex marriage (or believes that homosexual acts are sinful) is portrayed as a bigot homophobe and a hater. This went quickly from a movement which professed tolerance, to one which insists upon intolerance toward those with different beliefs. Now, in some places, people who do not want to recognize homosexuality as normal, can find themselves being sued. Some lose their businesses; some lose their jobs.

The midwives knew to fear the God of the Hebrews rather than Pharaoh. This is why, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 9:10a).

Exodus 1:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive.

We have studied this expression to fear God previously. This suggests more than simply believing in the Revealed God; this means that these women thought about God, respected Him, and recognized His great power and authority over them. A person who fears God in the Old Testament is more than just a believer; there is some level of spiritual maturity associated with them.

In considering their situation, these women just could not outright murder these infants. They knew that this was so wrong, that they could disobey the word of Pharaoh. They would rather take their chances with retribution from Pharaoh than with God. That is faith in the Revealed God; that is fear/respect of the Revealed God.

The Bible clearly teaches that we are to obey the authorities over us; but we are given some occasions in which we may disobey those authorities. When it is a matter of teaching Bible doctrine or presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ, those are imperatives for the believer, no matter what authorities say. Now, you have to be careful here. You cannot be hired by McDonald’s to sell fries, and use your interaction with customers as a chance to evangelize them. There is a proper time and place; and under all conditions, you have to wait for the right opening. You depend upon Bible doctrine in the soul and the guidance of God the Holy Spirit to help you determine when is the right time and what is the right thing to say (which is a matter of putting God’s thinking into your soul).

The authorities over you, whether political or economic, cannot require you to sin either. These women will disobey Pharaoh because he required them to kill Hebrew children. God will bless them as a result.

Many of us have naturally rebellious attitudes, and we may look for any and every opportunity to disobey authority. In the United States, there are going to be few if any instances which allow you to buck the authority over you. That is because, for the most part, the United States preserves the freedom of religion. As of late, the U.S. president in 2016 tried to curb the actions of believers; but his approach is atypical of U.S. presidents. The president in 2018 is attempting to preserve religious freedom and religious expression.

Here, disobeying Pharaoh has its consequences. He returns to speak to the midwives. Again, we do not know if he calls them in and speaks with them personally; or if he uses an intermediary. This is recorded in such a way as to suggest direct contact.

Exodus 1:18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”

We do not know how much time passed before Pharaoh realized that his orders were not being followed, so he speaks to the midwives again. Whether he speaks to more than these two; or whether he speaks only to these two, is unknown. Context suggests that he goes back to these two midwives in particular. What seems to be the case is, these two women are over all the midwives for the Hebrews. Or, these are the two midwives who are disobeying him; and perhaps there are a dozen others who are doing what Pharaoh is ordering them to do. So Pharaoh may be speaking, at this moment, to these two women along with perhaps a dozen other midwives (again, all we are certain of is, Pharaoh is speaking to these two women in particular).

Exodus 1:19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”

Since these midwives make comparisons between Hebrew women and Egyptian women, we can reasonably suppose that they are involved in the births of both. Therefore, these midwives are not necessarily Hebrew women.

Interestingly enough, the midwives simply lie to Pharaoh. They tell him, “By the time we get there, the child is born.” This may be in part true or not.

Pharaoh’s idea, therefore, was for them to deliver and then kill the child and simply report to the parents that the child died when being delivered (which would be a lie on top of murder). They could not do this, if they show up and the child is already born. They cannot kill healthy children who have already been born. So, this is the excuse that they give.

Now this is not necessarily the case; but what is said here allows us to hone in more on the order given to the midwives. The murders that Pharaoh ordered them to commit were to be surreptitious. He wanted his hands clean; he wanted them to be the ones to kill; and then for them to lie to the parents about what they have done.

Pharaoh did not want to simply order that all Hebrew male children be killed; but he wanted to do this in a sneaky manner, having the midwives do his dirty work for him. When this does not work, he will eventually become much more overt in his actions. The importance of his overt actions is, the people of Israel will recognize Pharaoh for the monster that he is. This is important for at least two reasons: (1) one or more families will take important steps to save their sons alive; and (2) God needs to drive a wedge between Egypt and the people of Israel. If they are satisfied with where they are, how can they be coaxed to leave Egypt?

Exodus 1:20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the [Hebrew] people multiplied and grew very mighty.

God blessed the midwives who protected the Hebrew children; therefore, the people of God continued to multiply and prosper.

Exodus 1:21 And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

The Midwives Feared God (a graphic); from Blog Spot; accessed June 5, 2018.

It appears that the midwives were given households, which suggests that they were married and had children themselves as a result. Or, they may have been unmarried and God provided husbands for them (as well as children). This would obviously be a blessing, as we may reasonably presume a midwife loves children. In whatever way, God blessed these midwives (and their names have been preserved for thousands of years—as are the names of many believers in the Scriptures).

Their actions now force Pharaoh to become far more overt in his evil.

Exodus 1:22 So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.”

The Pharaoh now orders that all male children of the Hebrew people be thrown into the river to drown. He no longer attempting to make the midwives quietly and secretly do his evil bidding. These evil actions become law, by order of the Pharaoh.

Tyranny takes a variety of forms. It may begin with great subtlety; but it will eventually become overt and easy to recognize. Any evil movement has to reveal itself at some point for the evil that it is. Communism and socialism always present themselves as a panacea of benefits for the imperfect society. Are you hungry or without medical care? Socialism will fix that. Is it hard for you to find a job? Socialism guarantees you a job. Do some people make so much money that you are jealous of them? Socialism will even all that out. And socialism presents itself to all kinds of economies, as a fix for all society’s ills. However, socialism is simply totalitarianism where some measure of equality is enforced among the people. Power and wealth are then concentrated into the hands of the political class, the few who rule with absolute authority over the many. And if you don’t like that, they can deal with you too. They are the judicial branch, the executive branch and the legislative branch all rolled into one. We separate these branches of government to insure a tension between the powers that be. The only tension in socialism is, who is at the top. Then all must be properly obedient to him.

Unfortunately, if a socialist bureaucrat has determined that you are a wrong kind of person, they can take care of you; they can jail you, starve you or move you to a horrible place. There are people in a socialist government who can make virtually unilateral decisions about people that they do not like. In many cases, there are no appeals; no disinterested 3^rd party is ever called upon to put fresh eyes on such a case.

At best, we have economies like Russia and China which, despite having more people and more resources, cannot outperform the United States economy (in fact, Russia cannot even outperform California’s economy). At worst, you have economies like Venezuela, a country with some of the greatest oil reserves in the world, but which is unable to feed its own people.

The Bible does not in any way promote socialism; and Jesus was not the first socialist. Socialism is one of the great evils of modern society. For a more complete study of socialism and the Bible, see the Doctrine of Socialism (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Moses Is Born (these titles come from the NKJV).

Exodus 2:1 And a man of the house of Levi went and took as wife a daughter of Levi.

The sons of Israel knew which tribe they belonged to. Some married within their tribe and some married outside of it. But they were able to trace themselves back to one of the sons of Jacob—and this is true for some even today. Based upon the first 10 or so chapters of 1Chronicles, we know that the Hebrews kept accurate, extensive genealogical records. This would further suggest that the Hebrew people knew their own history. That is, they knew who their ancestors were and some information about their background. It would seem rather incongruent for someone to know that they are a son of Levi, and yet know nothing whatsoever about Levi.

Exodus 2:2 So the woman conceived and bore a son. And when she saw that he was a beautiful child, she hid him three months.

This son who is born is Moses. We do not know if the midwives were involved at this point.

They all knew that the male children were being killed, and she hides her child. It is very possible that she gave birth without the help of a midwife.

Recall that the midwives were not cooperating with Pharaoh, so he issued an edict. Exodus 1:22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, "Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live."

The exact circumstances of Moses’ birth—whether by one of the midwives or not—is not given to us.

Exodus 2:3a But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch,...

When Moses is about 3 months old, it is clear to his mother that she can no longer hide him; yet she cannot allow him to be killed by Pharaoh’s henchmen. The mother, interestingly enough, fashions an ark for Moses. She designs it to be waterproof.

Exodus 2:3 But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river’s bank.

Although these actions may seem to be somewhat random, there is no reason to assume that. The mother and Moses’ older sister knew the direction of the water flow; they knew where this little ark would be carried to. Although there is nothing specifically said, it is reasonable to think that this ark was placed into the water at a particular time with the intent that is not just randomly float down the river, but that it was placed in the water at a specific time to float down to a specific place. There may even be the intent that it get caught up in the reeds where they expect the ark to go.

There are a great many people in the family of God who do random things, and expect that somehow, God will bless them and their random behavior. They are in a crisis, they open their Bible up to some random page and plop their finger down, in hopes that they will find the verse of the hour to guide them in the storm. However, this is not God’s plan. God’s plan is for you to have Bible doctrine in your soul first. You do not plop your finger down on some random verse, but your mind searches your human spirit for the wisdom of God’s Word, which can be applied at the proper time. Your finger does not fall upon some random verse; your mind chooses an appropriate verse (or concept) from the doctrine resident in your soul.

One legitimate problem solving method is known as applying a faith-rest rationale. There are general and specific principles found in the Word of God; and if you understand your circumstances in the light of the Word of God, you can then pull a concept out of what you know from the Word of God and place your faith in that concept. For instance, you are alive and you are, for whatever reason, concerned about being alive in the near future. Life after salvation tells us that, we are still in God’s plan and God has a purpose for us (whether this purpose will be worked out over the next 5 minutes or the next 5 years, we often do not know). But, whenever you are breathing and cognizant of your circumstances, the faith-rest rationale tells you, “I am in God’s plan right now; God has things for me to do right now.”

If you have not grown spiritually, then it is God’s plan for you is to hear Bible doctrine being taught by a well-qualified pastor-teacher. If you have been growing spiritually over a period of 1 or 5 or 10 years; then God’s plan might be for you to grow some more (which involves learning the Word of God), and/or God’s plan might be for you to apply what you know to the circumstances at hand.

Miriam (Moses’ older sister) and her mother knew that they could not allow for Moses to simply be killed—they knew that was wrong. They knew that if they kept this child around, his existence would become known and he would be killed, by order of Pharaoh. So, they try a different approach—Pharaoh said, every male child must be thrown into the River; and so they sort of do that. They place the child in a basket and float him to where Pharaoh’s daughter bathes that time of the day (I am assuming that they did not simply put Moses in an ark in the water at some random time at some random place, but that they had a specific end in mind).

Exodus 2:4 And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him.

This is probably Miriam, Moses’ older sister. She watches the ark to see what would happen to the child inside.

Again, I do not believe that this was random; but that they knew where the ark would float to; and they knew who would discover the ark with baby Moses (he has not been named yet, by the way) in it.

Who logically hatched this plan? Either the mother or the father (I would choose the mother, as she remains a part of this narrative). I have forgotten the exact age difference between Moses and Miriam, but I think she is about 7 years old at this time, so this is certainly not a plan which she hatched. She is a smart young lady and it will become apparent that she has been well-instructed as to what she had to do.

Exodus 2:5 Then the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river. And her maidens walked along the riverside; and when she saw the ark among the reeds, she sent her maid to get it.

Because the daughter of Pharaoh is bathing in the river, and the ark is caught in the reeds near her, it is very possible that this was intentional on the mother’s part. She would have known about the daughter of Pharaoh, much as people know about celebrities today (there are always human celebrities; and the primary ones in that era would have been Egyptian royalty).

There is no reason to think that all that happens here is simply random. In any case, certainly God had a hand in all of this as well.

It is reasonable to assume that the baby, at this point, is crying; however, even if the baby is not, something like this ark floating among the reeds would have certainly caught the attention of a curious young girl.

Exodus 2:6 And when she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby wept. So she had compassion on him, and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”

A normal woman, when faced with a helpless child, feels great compassion for that child. Women have a great capacity for love; and when something is helpless and needs care, the woman’s love, compassion and empathy go into overdrive.

It appears that this is Pharaoh’s daughter who is doing all of this. Her personal maid has fetched the ark, but she opens it up. She knows that this child is one of the Hebrews because he is circumcised. It is obvious.

Exodus 2:7 Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call a nurse for you from the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?”

Now, Miriam, Moses’ sister, pops up sort of out of nowhere, and she asks if she should find a Hebrew woman to nurse the child. Let me suggest that Miriam and Moses’ mother had a plan; and young Miriam would present that plan to Pharaoh’s daughter.

At some point, as the daughter of Pharaoh looked at baby Moses with great compassion, knowing the order of her father. However, at the same time, there would be part of her thinking which would have been about the practicalities of, how would I feed this child?

Now, note exactly what Miriam said: “Shall I go and call a nurse for you from the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for you?” Miriam does not say, “Listen, I know the mother of this child and I can bring her here.” Instead she offers, “Shall I got and find a nurse for you from the Hebrew women, so that she can nurse the child?” So Miriam just happens to know a woman who is nursing and would be willing to come and nurse this child.

This allows the daughter of Pharaoh the solution to the first anticipated problem—how would I feed and take care of this baby? Without saying so, Miriam is suggesting that the mother—and they both know that this is the baby’s mother who will nurse the baby—will not lay claim to the child. She cannot, because of Pharaoh’s order.

Although we are not told what the Pharaoh’s daughter is thinking, she has clearly bonded with this child and has laid claim to him, as he floated to her in the Nile. By what is carefully said and not said, Pharaoh’s daughter knows that the baby can be fed and that she has full claim on this child.

Exodus 2:8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go.” So the maiden went and called the child’s mother.

Pharaoh’s daughter gives the order, and so Miriam goes to get their mother to nurse the child. But, she will never be called the mother of this baby—not to Pharaoh’s daughter. I don’t doubt that Miriam was so instructed.

The Discovery of Baby Moses (a graphic); from The Orthodox Life; accessed June 12, 2018.

Is Miriam taking a chance here? Is the mother of Moses taking a chance? No doubt, they are. But Pharaoh’s order did not leave them with a lot of options. It is my guess that, this was figured out all in advance. There seemed to be one way to preserve the life of Moses, and that is what they chose to do. They would depend upon the natural compassion of the daughter of Pharaoh.

Exodus 2:9 Then Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child away and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.” So the woman took the child and nursed him.

The Pharaoh’s daughter does not raise the child at home at first; he is sent back with the mother to nurse. It is unclear as to how long this was; and what sort of protection was afforded the child and mother; but, some sort of protection and agreement was made, so that Moses was allowed to live as an infant with his mother. Then, at some point, the infant was brought back to Pharaoh’s daughter. I would assume that this is when the child stopped nursing. Such details about the protection of the child are not given in this narrative.

Other details as to, was there any formal adoption or was this simply assumed; what did Pharaoh say about this, etc.—none of this is discussed. I think that, at most, we can assume that Miriam, the mother and Pharaoh’s daughter left a great deal intentionally unsaid. I don’t think that Moses’ mother was ever called his mother—not in front of Pharaoh’s daughter—and I think that the love of Pharaoh’s daughter for this little child was so strong that, she almost automatically assumed responsibility and ownership.

Let me suggest that Pharaoh’s daughter knew and understood the order given by her father, to throw male infants of the Hebrew people into the Nile. However, when she encountered such a child face to face, she could not bear to see him harmed.

A male child is born to two Levites at a time when the Pharaoh has demanded that all Israelite male infants be thrown into the Nile. His mother, instead, places him into a watertight ark, and Miriam, the older sister, watches the ark to see what would happen to him. The ark came to rest in some reeds where the daughter of pharaoh was bathing. She sent one of her servants to fetch the ark, and when she opened it, there was a baby inside—clearly a male Hebrew child. Although she immediately took to the child, she would have been unable to nurse the child. The young Miriam approaches her, offering to find a suitable nursemaid among the Hebrew people to nurse the child for the royal daughter.

The subtext is, the royal daughter no doubt knew that Miriam is his sister and that the nursemaid would be his mother—but this is never said out loud. Instead, this is some lone helpless male child, floating in the Nile, and Miriam appears out of nowhere as an interested bystander, and she just happens to know that she might find a woman to nurse the child. The relationships are left unsaid, so that the daughter of Pharaoh—if her heart is right—will adopt this child, unencumbered by any other potential claims on him. To make this a proper transaction, the royal daughter would even pay the nursemaid to feed the infant, as would be proper.

Protection for the child at this time is not discussed—but bear in mind, this is treated as if this child belongs to the pharaoh’s daughter, and the child is in the Hebrew city simply to be nursed. No one would harm the son of the pharaoh’s daughter.

Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she [the nursemaid, the child’s birth mother] brought him [the weaned infant] to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. So she called his name Moses, saying, “Because I drew him out of the water.”

At some point, the child is brought to the daughter of Pharaoh (she has no doubt dealt with her father about this), and she raises him as her own son.

The English text sounds like this was a series of singular events. The real mother takes the baby back, nurses him, weans him, and then brings him to Pharaoh’s daughter to continue raising him. However, the verbs grow, brought, became and called are all in the imperfect tense, and this gives us two possible options: these are a series of actions which take place in this order (when a series of imperfect verbs are held together by wâw consecutives, then this is one way to interpret them); but the other way to see these verbs are as processes; a set (not series) of events viewed as a set of coterminous processes. The child grows—that is a process; the child becomes Pharaoh’s daughter’s son—that is a process. Let me suggest that bringing the child to Pharaoh’s daughter was also a process—that it did not take place all at once, but every day, the child was brought to Pharaoh’s daughter, and every day the child became more and more the child of Pharaoh’s daughter.

All of this leads me to the Pharaoh’s daughter naming the child. Now, at what point did this take place? If we see this as a series of chronological events, then after everything happens, and now the baby is permanently in the hands of Pharaoh’s daughter, she decides, “Why not give him a name?” This might be a year later or even longer. Let me suggest instead that, Pharaoh’s daughter began spending more and more time with the child (that she spends time with the child is conjecture on my part), and that she thought about his name for awhile—and, perhaps after a few weeks, settled on Moses. This would have logically taken place before she took complete custody of the child. The people involved could only call baby Moses, kid or boy for so long.

The other view is, these are all consecutive actions, and that Pharaoh’s daughter would not name the child until he became her child, living with her all of the time. At that time, it all became very real. That is by far the most common way that we interpret consecutive imperfect verbs. Even though it seems quite odd to name a child when that child is age 1 or 3 (or whatever), it is possible that is what took place.

Regarding intervening contact with the child—the text does not indicate that occurred, but one could not rule that out. After all, the nursing mother was paid. Would that not have been an opportunity for the adopting mother to come and see the child? Was she paid weekly or monthly—or even daily?

Whether or not there was intervening contact, there is no doubt that the daughter of pharaoh thought about this infant every day because that is what a woman is like when she opens a place in her soul for another person.

Now, let’s consider the Pharaoh, who has ordered the death of these Hebrew children. Why doesn’t he kill this child? If you cannot understand how Pharaoh can order the killing all of the male children and yet allow his daughter to raise a young, adopted male child (who is clearly a Hebrew boy), then you have never had a daughter. If the daughter of pharaoh said, “I am adopting this child” or “I would like to adopt this child,” her father simply cannot refuse her.

The writer of Hebrews presents this history to us in this way:

Heb. 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

The king’s edict was that all male children born at that time were to be thrown into the Nile River and drown. Moses’ parents refused to be intimidated by this order.

Saint Stephen spoke about Moses during this period of time in a marvelous sermon in Acts 7:

Acts 7:17–18 "But as the time of the promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph.

God had promised Abraham that he would become a great nation and that there would be many people descended from him. The time of the promise was the time that God would make the people of Israel into a nation.

Act 7:19 He dealt shrewdly with our race and forced our fathers to expose their infants, so that they would not be kept alive.

We have seen previously that Stephen abbreviated Israel’s history here and there, sometimes skipping over details which are easy found in Genesis. There king who rose up over Egypt, who did not know Joseph, he dealt shrewdly (subtly, using artifice and fraud) with the people of Israel, putting them into slavery. At some point in the future from that king, his enslaving the people would demand that another pharaoh limit the number of male children being born—to protect the Egyptian people. This other pharaoh was worried that the Hebrew people might become too strong, and possibly able to rise up and oppose the Egyptians.

Acts 7:20–21 At this time Moses was born; and he was beautiful in God's sight. And he was brought up for three months in his father's house, and when he was exposed, Pharaoh's daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son.

At this time refers to a time while the people of Israel were enslaved to the Egyptians and male infants were being killed.

The text in Exodus describes more completely the process of Pharaoh’s daughter adopting the Hebrew infant.

Act 7:22 And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.

This information is new. This is not found in the Exodus account. Moses was well-trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. This did not mean that he majored in philosophy, but that he was taught a variety of subjects, which likely included geography, history, languages and war theory. Moses was raised as if he might become pharaoh one day.

Moses Flees to Midian (headings come from the NKJV Bible)

Moses had been taken in by the Pharaoh’s daughter when he was an infant; and she adopted him. Logically, he would have been raised to become Pharaoh at some point in time. He would have received all of the training and preparation that any royal male child would have received, with the thought that, he might become Pharaoh someday. Whatever training took place is all passed over in the Exodus text, but recounted by Stephen 1500 years later. We may assume that there were traditions of Moses’ upbringing, perhaps additional texts or commentary; or that Stephen is speaking inspired by God the Holy Spirit, providing this additional information (I believe that it is one of the first two).

We now move ahead in time when Moses is around 40 years old.

Exodus 2:11a Now it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens.

The phrase now it came to pass in those days is literally, And so it is in those days... Without a specific subject and object, the verb hâyâh often means and it will come to be, and it will come to pass, then it came to pass (with the wâw consecutive). It may be more idiomatically rendered subsequently, afterwards, later on, in the course of time, after which. Generally, the verb does not match the gender whatever nearby noun could be the subject (and, as often, there is no noun nearby which would fulfill the conditions of being a subject).

Moses apparently knew of his origin—at least enough of it to know that he was a Hebrew (the circumcision would have differentiated him from Egyptian children). It is very likely that he knew what his name meant; and he knew pretty much exactly what happened. I do not doubt that his adoptive mother told him about how he came to be her son many, many times.

Furthermore, even though he is adopted into the royal family, it is apparent that he will know his actual brother and sister (based on information which we will study later). The extent to which he knows them is unclear.

So, Moses grows up into full adulthood, carefully trained and education to become the next pharaoh. For whatever reason, he decides to go out and see what is going on with his brothers (fellow Hebrews), who are enslaved to Egypt. No doubt, he has lived somewhat of a sheltered existence, with an emphasis upon a royal education. No doubt, he knew history, geography, languages; and that he had physical and military training. But Moses would also have had some understanding of his own origins (I believe a full understanding of them). So here he is, about 40 years old, and he has (apparently) never ventured out among the Hebrew people. Or, if he had gone out among his people before, nothing really came of it.

How does this happen? How does Moses turn 40 without going out among the Hebrew people? Moses is raised under great discipline and structure; with a strong emphasis upon his education. Given that he will write and sing a song later in this book suggests that Moses probably had some musical training as well. His existence would have been somewhat isolated and posh. He would have known about the Hebrew slaves, from whom he was taken; but he may not have had any burning desire to get out there to know them. After all, as the son of the daughter of the Pharaoh, he enjoyed a wonderful upbringing, which included intensive training.

Furthermore, each one of us is born into a specific environment, which we begin to have memories of somewhere between the ages of 2 and 4. We simply accept that environment and the norms and standards of that environment. For many years, in fact, we simply assume that this is the way things ought to be. Moses would have been raised apart from the Hebrew people. He would have had contact, possibly, with some Hebrew slaves who worked at the royal palace—perhaps, even those who tutored him. But there is no indication of any further contact with his birth family.

We do not know when (or how) Moses became fully aware that he was of a Jewish heritage, when (or why) he decided to take a walk out among his people; or even if this is the first time that he does this. About the only question above that we can reasonably answer is, his adopted mother told him of his heritage; which included his specific family (which family she came to know when Moses was very young). Given his name, Moses had to know.

I would guess that, at a certain point, once Moses was weaned, that he no longer had contact with his Jewish family—something either required from his adoptive mother or from his grandfather). All of this is conjecture on my part, based upon the little that we know about Moses’ youth.

Exodus 2:11 Now it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens. And he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.

Although the NKJV is an excellent translation, now and again, they miss the mark. Why do they use the word brethren right here? Why did they not update this to brother or brothers?

One of the things which catches Moses’ eye is, he see an Egyptian beating a Hebrew man, and this bothers Moses greatly. Given that the Egyptian is in charge of so many men; and given that the Hebrew man is a slave; such a beating was probably common, so that order might be maintained among the slaves. However, this could not have been pleasant to Moses, recognizing that, he is uniquely related to that slave being beaten. The man being beaten was of his family—not immediate family, but this was a man he was related to. Let me suggest that Moses had not been acquainted with the true ugliness of slavery.

Sometimes seeing how things really are can be quite affecting. Even though Moses was raised among the Egyptians, seeing an Egyptian beat a Hebrew affected him. Although Moses no doubt had interactions with slaves (perhaps Hebrew slaves, perhaps not), he would be exposed to the best of slaves, so that little or no discipline was required (being a slave in the royal palace would have been the A #1 best gig for any slave).

Moses would have not necessarily been familiar with the inhumanity of slavery. So, Moses sees this beating, which probably shocks him; and it is all based upon these Hebrews—his relatives—being slaves to the Egyptians.

One way a movie or a television show draws us in is, they have one or more characters that we identify with or sympathize with, so that we are concerned with their lives and what happens to them. In this real life situation, Moses identified and sympathized with the beaten man; not with the Egyptian taskmaster—despite his upbringing as Egyptian royalty. Let me suggest that this was a very serious beat down, and the Hebrew man no doubt suffered great physical damage.

Moses is now about 40 years old and he decides to go out among his people, the Hebrews. He knows that he was originally a Hebrew, but brought up by his adoptive Egyptian mother, the daughter of Pharaoh. Moses has no doubt learned some history of his people. There has to be at least an official history of them presented from the Egyptian point of view. Given the general intelligence of the Hebrew people, it is my guess that perhaps Moses even had a Hebrew tutor for some subjects, and it is what he said that helped to motivate Moses (this is conjecture on my part).

Exodus 2:11 Now it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens. And he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.

Moses had not seen the ugly part of slavery. In the palace, the slaves there would have been erudite, cooperative, and happy to have that position. But, when it came to Pharaoh’s building projects, those Hebrews were not nearly as happy about what they were doing. Therefore, sometimes a Hebrew slave needed to be beaten down to show him his place. Moses observed this and found himself sympathizing with the Hebrew slave rather than identifying with the Egyptian taskmaster, who was maintaining discipline and order.

Exodus 2:12 So he [Moses] looked this way and that way, and when he saw no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

Moses looks around, and, seeing no one, he kills the Egyptian and apparently buries him in the sand. Moses assumes that he is being quite surreptitious here. Although he believes that no one has seen him, people not only have seen him, but they know who he is and who the taskmaster is.

We do not know if Moses was observed; or whether the beaten Hebrew man knew who Moses was and told others about him.

I am reminded of Jesus, when He healed a man from leprosy, and then, afterwards, charged the man not to tell anyone (Mark 1:41–44). Maybe there are times for you (or me) when we should keep our mouths shut.

Exodus 2:13 And when he went out the second day, behold, two Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the one who did the wrong, “Why are you striking your companion?”

So Moses goes out the second day, and he comes across two Hebrew men in a fight.

Moses feels a kinship with his fellow Hebrews, and so he is confused when he finds two Hebrews fighting with one another. He asks them why are they fighting. It is apparent that one man is the initiator here.

Before moving forward in this narrative, let’s look at this history that we have been studying from a New Testament perspective. This will lead us into a study of the Messiah as understood by Moses’ generation.

Heb. 11:24–25 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. (The ESV; capitalized is used throughout)

Let me suggest that there are some additional details here, more than what we studied in Exodus. Moses, as a royal son, would have studied languages, history and geography—certainly from the Egyptian point of view. Let me suggest that Moses, perhaps, was taught by a Hebrew tutor, who at Moses’ insistence, gave Moses the true background of his own people. Although this is conjecture on my part, it logically fills in much of the backstory of Moses in the palace of Pharaoh.

We know that Moses was raised up in the palace of Pharaoh (Exodus 2:10) and educated there (Acts 7:22); and that something led him out among the Hebrew people (Exodus 2:11 Acts 7:23). How or why that came about is not revealed to us. I would suggest that Moses heard the non-Egyptian historical perspective. Was this from a Jewish tutor? Did Moses get a copy of Genesis (which he was able to read)? We don’t know exactly what took place, but I believe that it was related to Moses’ education and the Scriptures, as they existed at that time (likely, the books of Genesis of Job).

What the writer of Hebrews is telling us is, as an adult, Moses identified with the Hebrew people to the point where he took the side of a Hebrew slave against his Egyptian taskmaster who was beating him. Enjoying the fleeting pleasures of sin would mean that Moses would accept his lot in life as an Egyptian, and turn his back on this Hebrew slave.

Heb 11:26 He [Moses] considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

Now, this may seem weird to you that Moses would have considered anything about Jesus Christ back 1500 years prior to these words written by the author of Hebrews; so, how do we make sense of this? The word used here is: Christ; which is the Greek word for Messiah. This suggests that the Hebrew understanding of the Messiah goes way, way back. This suggests that Moses had some understanding of the Messiah back then—even as a son of the Pharaoh’s daughter. This suggests that the Hebrew people had an understanding of the Messiah which goes all the way back to nearly their beginnings.

We previously stopped at a difficult verse in Hebrews to explain it. We are looking at a portion of the history of Exodus 2:11–3:10 in the New Testament, with the emphasis being on the end of chapter 2. However, these two passages in the New Testament also take into account Moses’ actions far later, compressing his life events in Exodus 2 with those when he actually confronts Pharaoh (which we have not covered yet).

Heb. 11:24–25 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. (The ESV; capitalized is used throughout)

The writer of Hebrews and Saint Stephen both give a lot of Old Testament history, but they tend to abbreviate that history somewhat, in order that their point not be lost in a long historical narration. Neither person covers in great detail each and every event of Moses’ life. Neither person covers every historical verse on Moses.

Reread the passage in Hebrews, and then know this: Moses did not, at age 40, say to himself, “I am going to go out and live with the Hebrew people and forsake the palace of Pharaoh. I will become a slave along side of my people.” He did not do that. But, he did have a strong identification with the Hebrew people, and he did go out among them. Moses did not need to do that. He did not need to go out among the Hebrew slaves of the Egyptians. This does not mean that, the moment Moses stepped into the realm of the Hebrew slaves that he renounced his life as an Egyptian and said, “Listen, I am never going back to the palace.” Because, apparently between Exodus 2:12 and 2:13, he returned to the palace.

The writer of Hebrews combines a number of events together—things which happened to Moses and decisions which he made—and presents them in summation. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. There is nothing in Exodus 2 to suggest that this happened all at once. He went out among his people, took the side of a Hebrew slave over his master, and killed his Egyptian master. When Moses went out among the people the next day (presumably from the palace again), and spoke to two Hebrew slaves having an altercation. At that point, Moses finds out that his crime is not hidden, and he leaves Egypt. He is not leaving Egypt because he refuses to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; he is not leaving Egypt to get away from enjoying the fleeting pleasures of sin; he is leaving Egypt so that he will not be executed (Exodus 2:14–15a).

Now, what happens in Moses’ life subsequently, leads him to lead the people of Jacob out of Egypt. This was not a singular decision or a singular event. His opposition to Pharaoh, to the Egyptians, as God’s spokesman for the Hebrew people—this is Moses, who, by faith, no longer considers himself to be the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; and he chooses to stand with the people of Jacob against the royalty of Egypt. Again, not a singular decision, nor a singular event; but a series of events and decisions which lead him to that place. All of it is summed up by the writer of Hebrews as if a singular event (the purpose of this author was not to confuse or mislead the reader, but to sum up Moses’s history—which history nearly everyone in his audience of readers knows).

Heb. 11:24–25 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.

So, over a period of time—beginning when Moses first stepped out among his people, the Hebrew slaves, and then taken in conjunction with Moses speaking in opposition to Pharaoh on behalf of God and behalf of his people the Hebrews—Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, but he stood in opposition to Pharaoh, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.

This was not a one-shot decision, but a series of decisions combined with a series of events. We can historically examine this by each decision and each event, or we can look at what Moses chose to do, over a period of time, in terms of its final results. That is the way that the writer of Hebrews presented this information.

Heb 11:26 He [Moses] considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

We studied the concept of the Messiah (= the Christ) previously. I believe that Moses had some understanding of the Hebrew Messiah. In our study, it is clear that his understanding could not have been extensive. He may have known Messiah as the Seed of the Woman, Who would crush the head of the serpent, and Who would proceed from the tribe of Jacob (Moses is from the tribe of Levi). Did Moses understand that the burning bush of Exodus 3 to be Messiah? I doubt that He did. But God the Holy Spirit knows this; and so, that is reflected in the Scriptures (Moses being the human author of those Scriptures).

Once Moses developed some trust in God, he considered the reproach of God of greater value than the treasures of Egypt; and that his value in life would be to follow God. Do you see how that is very much what Heb. 11:26 says? The only difference is, the writer of Hebrews has the name/title Christ rather than God; but the Messiah is God! So the writer of Hebrews is taking information known about the history of Moses and infusing it with correct information about Messiah—that the Messiah is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is God.

Heb 11:27 By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing Him Who is invisible.

The writer of Hebrews, like Saint Stephen, abbreviates the history. We have to unpack and un-abbreviate it, so that we do not misinterpret the writer’s words. We should not understand the writer of Hebrews to present a study of Moses than can be laid side-by-side this same set of verses in the Old Testament. It was not the point of the writer of Hebrews to present the entire history of Moses and Pharaoh; the writer of Hebrews is making a point about faith and how Moses exercised faith in God, and this led him to take certain positions and to act on these decisions. That is what this whole faith chapter is all about.

Even though exercising faith in Jesus Christ is an initial decision which places us into Christ, with an unbreakable relationship to Jesus Christ; this is not the only time that we will exercise faith in our lives; nor is our faith necessarily static. As we grow spiritually (if we grow spiritually), our faith in God and God’s plan becomes greater.

At the beginning, Moses left Egypt because he was afraid of the anger of the king of Egypt (Exodus 2:14–15). And, 40 years after leaving Egypt, Moses was, at first, was reticent to speak for God in front of the king because he believed his ability to speak to be not on par with what God was telling him to do (we have yet to study that).

However, at some point, in these 10 confrontations with Pharaoh, Moses developed great confidence in speaking to the king of Egypt. At some point, Moses went boldly before Pharaoh’s throne during the final warnings of plagues to come. Moses was no longer in fear of Pharaoh; he was, instead, in awe of God.

Moses was unable to see God, only the manifestations of God (the burning bush, for instance). Moses will later be able to sort of see God, when he is in the cleft of the rock (Rock). Moses saw manifestations of God, Who is invisible.

Now let’s allow Saint Stephen to review us of what we have studied so far in Exodus 2:

Acts 7:23–25 "When he [Moses] was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel. And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian. He supposed that his brothers would understand that God was giving them salvation by his hand, but they did not understand.

Both Stephen and the writer of Hebrews abbreviate the history of Moses, so we interpret their words in light of this entire episode. V. 25 is quite interesting about God giving the Hebrew people salvation by Moses’ hand—is Stephen placing this within this time frame, or is he looking further down the road?

Acts 7:26–28 And on the following day he [Moses] appeared to them as they were quarreling and tried to reconcile them, saying, 'Men, you are brothers. Why do you wrong each other?' But the man who was wronging his neighbor thrust him aside, saying, 'Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you want to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?'

At this point, we might want to break this passage down more carefully.