Exodus 19 commentary

EXODUS 19 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
At Mount Sinai
1 On the first day of the third month after the
Israelites left Egypt—on that very day—they
came to the Desert of Sinai.
BAR ES, "The wilderness ... the desert of Sinai - If the mount from which the
law was delivered be the rock of Ras Safsafeh, then the spacious plain of Er Rahah would
be the “desert” of Sinai (see Exo_5:17).
CLARKE, "In the third month - This was called Sivan, and answers to our May.
For the Jewish months, years, etc.
The same day - There are three opinions concerning the meaning of this place,
which are supported by respectable arguments.
1. The same day means the same day of the third month with that, viz., the 15th, on
which the Israelites had left Egypt.
2. The same day signifies here a day of the same number with the month to which it
is applied, viz., the third day of the third month.
3. By the same day, the first day of the month is intended. The Jews celebrate the
feast of pentecost fifty days after the passover: from the departure out of Egypt to
the coming to Sinai were forty-five days; for they came out the fifteenth day of the
first month, from which day to the first of the third month forty-five days are
numbered. On the 2d day of this third month Moses went up into the mountain,
when three days were given to the people to purify themselves; this gives the
fourth day of the third month, or the forty-ninth from the departure out of Egypt.
On the next day, which was the fiftieth from the celebration of the passover, the
glory of God appeared on the mount; in commemoration of which the Jews
celebrate the feast of pentecost. This is the opinion of St. Augustine and of several
moderns, and is defended at large by Houbigant. As the word ‫חדש‬ chodesh, month,
is put for new moon, which is with the Jews the first day of the month, this may be
considered an additional confirmation of the above opinion.
The wilderness of Sinai - Mount Sinai is called by the Arabs Jibel Mousa or the

Mount of Moses, or, by way of eminence, El Tor, The Mount. It is one hill, with two
peaks or summits; one is called Horeb, the other Sinai. Horeb was probably its most
ancient name, and might designate the whole mountain; but as the Lord had appeared to
Moses on this mountain in a bush ‫סנה‬ seneh, Exo_3:2, from this circumstance it might
have received the name of Sinai or ‫סיני‬ ‫הר‬ har Sinai, the mount of the bush or the mount
of bushes; for it is possible that it was not in a single bush, but in a thicket of bushes,
that the Angel of God made his appearance. The word bush is often used for woods or
forests.
GILL, "In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out
of the land of Egypt,.... Which was the month Sivan, and answers to part of May and
part of June:
the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai; which had its name from
the mountain situated in it, and that from the bushes which grew upon it. Justin (z) calls
it Synan, which he says Moses occupied, and Strabo (a), Sinnan. Hither they came either
on the same day they came from Rephidim; which, according to Bunting (b), were eight
miles from it, or on the same day of the month, as to number, that is, on the third day of
the third month; and so Jerom (c) and others say it was on the forty seventh day after
their coming out of Egypt, three days after which they received the law on Mount Sinai,
it being a generally received notion that the law was given fifty days after the passover;
hence the feast of weeks is called from thence the feast of pentecost, or fifty days: or
rather this was the first day of the month, as Jarchi and R. Moses; with which agrees the
Targum of Jonathan; and so was the forty fifth of their coming out of Egypt, five days
after which they received the law; it being a tradition with the Jews, as Aben Ezra
observes, that that was given on the sixth of Sivan, and may be accounted for thus; on
the first day they came to Sinai, and encamped there, on the day following Moses went
up to God, Exo_19:3, on the third day Moses gathered the elders together, Exo_19:7,
and declared to them the words of God, and on the third day after that, which was the
sixth, the law was delivered to them.
HE RY,"Here is, I. The date of that great charter by which Israel was incorporated.
1. The time when it bears date (Exo_19:1) - in the third month after they came out of
Egypt. It is computed that the law was given just fifty days after their coming out of
Egypt, in remembrance of which the feast of Pentecost was observed the fiftieth day after
the passover, and in compliance with which the Spirit was poured out upon the apostles
at the feast of pentecost, fifty days after the death of Christ. In Egypt they had spoken of
a three days' journey into the wilderness to the place of their sacrifice (Exo_5:3), but it
proved to be almost a two months' journey; so often are we out in the calculation of
times, and things prove longer in the doing than we expected. 2. The place whence it
bears date - from Mount Sinai, a place which nature, not art, had made eminent and
conspicuous, for it was the highest in all that range of mountains. Thus God put
contempt upon cities, and palaces, and magnificent structures, setting up his pavilion on
the top of a high mountain, in a waste and barren desert, there to carry on this treaty. It
is called Sinai, from the multitude of thorny bushes that overspread it.

JAMISO , "Exo_19:1-25. Arrival at Sinai.
In the third month — according to Jewish usage, the first day of that month - “same
day.” - It is added, to mark the time more explicitly, that is, forty-five days after Egypt -
one day spent on the mount (Exo_19:3), one returning the people’s answer (Exo_19:7,
Exo_19:8), three days of preparation, making the whole time fifty days from the first
passover to the promulgation of the law. Hence the feast of pentecost, that is, the fiftieth
day, was the inauguration of the Old Testament church, and the divine wisdom is
apparent in the selection of the same reason for the institution of the New Testament
church (Joh_1:17; Act_2:1).
K&D 1-2, "In the third month after their departure from Egypt, the Israelites arrived
at Sinai, proceeding from Rephidim into the desert of Sinai, and encamping there before
the mountain. On what day of the month, the received text does not state. The striking
expression ‫ה‬ֶ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ּום‬ ַ (“the same day”), without any previous notice of the day, cannot
signify the first day of the month; nor can ‫י‬ ִ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ ַ‫ה‬ ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ ַ‫ה‬ signify the third new moon in the
year, and be understood as referring to the first day of the third month. For although,
according to the etymology of ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ (from ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ד‬ ָ‫ח‬ to be new), it might denote the new moon,
yet in chronological data it is never used in this sense; but the day of the month is
invariably appended after the month itself has been given (e.g., ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ ַ‫ל‬ ‫ד‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫א‬ Exo_40:2, Exo_
40:17; Gen_8:5, Gen_8:13; Num_1:1; Num_29:1; Num_33:38, etc.). Moreover, in the
Pentateuch the word ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ never signifies new moon; but the new moons are called ‫ים‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫ד‬ ֳ‫ח‬
‫י‬ ֵ‫אשׁ‬ ָ‫ר‬ (Num_10:10; Num_28:11, cf. Hengstenberg, Dissertations, vol. ii. 297). And even
in such passages as 1Sa_20:5; 1Sa_18:24; 2Ki_4:23; Amo_8:5; Isa_1:13, etc., where ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬
is mentioned as a feast along with the Sabbaths and other feasts, the meaning new moon
appears neither demonstrable nor necessary, as ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ in this case denotes the feast of the
month, the celebration of the beginning of the month. If, therefore, the text is genuine,
and the date of the month has not dropt out (and the agreement of the ancient versions
with the Masoretic text favours this conclusion), there is no other course open, than to
understand ‫ּום‬‫י‬, as in Gen_2:4 and Num_3:1, and probably also in the unusual
expression ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ּד‬‫ח‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ּום‬‫י‬, Exo_40:2, in the general sense of time; so that here, and also in
Num_9:1; Num_20:1, the month only is given, and not the day of the month, and it is
altogether uncertain whether the arrival in the desert of Sinai took place on one of the
first, one of the middle, or one of the last days of the month. The Jewish tradition, which
assigns the giving of the law to the fiftieth day after the Passover, is of far too recent a
date to pass for historical (see my Archäologie, §83, 6).
The desert of Sinai is not the plain of er Rahah to the north of Horeb, but the desert in
front (‫ד‬ֶ‫ג‬ֶ‫)נ‬ of the mountain, upon the summit of which Jehovah came down, whilst Moses
ascended it to receive the law (Exo_19:20 and Exo_34:2). This mountain is constantly
called Sinai so long as Israel stayed there (Exo_19:18, Exo_19:20, Exo_19:23, Exo_
24:16; Exo_34:2, Exo_34:4, Exo_34:29, Exo_34:32; Lev_7:38; Lev_25:1; Lev_26:46;
Lev_27:34; Num_3:1; see also Num_28:6 and Deu_33:2); and the place of their
encampment by the mountain is also called the “desert of Sinai,” never the desert of
Horeb (Lev_7:38; Num_1:1, Num_1:19; Num_3:14; Num_9:1; Num_10:12; Num_

26:64; Num_33:15). But in Exo_33:6 this spot is designated as “Mount Horeb,” and in
Deuteronomy, as a rule, it is spoken of briefly as “Horeb” (Deu_1:2, Deu_1:6, Deu_1:19;
Deu_4:10, Deu_4:15; Deu_5:2; Deu_9:8; Deu_18:16; Deu_29:1). And whilst the general
identity of Sinai and Horeb may be inferred from this; the fact, that wherever the
intention of the writer is to give a precise and geographical description of the place
where the law was given, the name Sinai is employed, leads to the conclusion that the
term Horeb was more general and comprehensive than that of Sinai; in other words, that
Horeb was the range of which Sinai was one particular mountain, which only came
prominently out to view when Israel had arrived at the mount of legislation. This
distinction between the two names, which Hengstenberg was the first to point out and
establish (in his Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 325), is now generally admitted; so that the only
room that is left for any difference of opinion is with reference to the extent of the Horeb
range. There is no ground for supposing that the name Horeb includes the whole of the
mountains in the Arabian peninsula. Sufficient justice is done to all the statements in the
Bible, if we restrict this name to the southern and highest range of the central
mountains-to the exclusion, therefore, of the Serbal group.
(Note: This hypothesis advocated by Lepsius, that Sinai or Horeb is to be sought
for in Serbal, has very properly met with no favour. For the objections to this, see
Ritter, Erdkunde 14, pp. 738ff.; and Kurtz, History of O.C., vol. iii. p. 94ff.)
This southern range, which Arabian geographers and the Bedouins call Jebel Tur or
Jebel Tur Sina, consists of three summits: (1) a central one, called by the Arabs Jebel
Musa (Moses' Mountain), and by Christians either Horeb or else Horeb-Sinai, in which
case the northern and lower peak, or Ras es Sufsafeh, is called Horeb, and the southern
and loftier one Sinai; (2) a western one, called Jebel Humr, with Mount Catherine on the
south, the loftiest point in the whole range; and (3) an eastern one, called Jebel el Deir
(Convent Mountain) or Episteme (vide Ritter, 14, pp. 527ff.). - Near this range there are
two plains, which furnish space enough for a large encampment. One of these is the
plain of er Rahah, on the north and north-west of Horeb-Sinai, with a level space of an
English square mile, which is considerably enlarged by the Sheikh valley that opens into
it from the east. At its southern extremity Horeb, with its granite rocks, runs almost
precipitously to the height of 1200 or 1500 feet; and towards the west it is also shut in as
with a wall by the equally precipitous spurs of Jebel Humr. The other plain, which is
called Sebayeh, lies to the south-east of Sinai, or Jebel Musa in the more restricted
sense; it is from 1400 to 1800 feet broad, 12,000 feet long, and is shut in towards the
south and east by mountains, which rise very gently, and do not reach any considerable
height. There are three wadys leading to this plain from er Rahah and the Sheikh valley.
The most westerly of these, which separates Horeb-Sinai from Jebel Humr with Mount
Catherine on the south, is called el Leja, and is a narrow defile full of great blocks of
stone, and shut in towards the south like a cul de sac by Mount Catherine. The central
one, which separates Horeb from Jebel Deir, is Wady Shoeib (Jethro valley), with the
convent of Sinai in it, which is also called the Convent Valley in consequence. This is less
confined, and not so much strewed with stones; towards the south it is not quite shut in,
and yet not quite open, but bounded by a steep pass and a grassy mountain-saddle, viz.,
the easily accessible Jebel Sebayeh. The third and most easterly is the Wady es Sebayeh,
which is from 400 to 600 feet broad, and leads form the Sheikh valley, in a southern and
south-westerly direction, to the plain of the same name, which stretches like an
amphitheatre to the southern slope of Sinai, or Jebel Musa, in the more restricted sense.
When seen from this plain, “Jebel Musa has the appearance of a lofty and splendid
mountain cone, towering far above the lower gravelly hills by which it is surrounded”
(Ritter, pp. 540, 541).

Since Robinson, who was the first to describe the plain of er Rahah, and its fitness for
the encampment of Israel, visited Sinai, this plain has generally been regarded as the site
where Israel encamped in the “desert of Sinai.” Robinson supposed that he had
discovered the Sinai of the Bible in the northern peak of Mount Horeb, viz., Ras es
Sufsafeh. But Ritter, Kurtz, and others have followed Laborde and Fa. A. Strauss, who
were the first to point out the suitableness of the plain of Sebayeh to receive a great
number of people, in fixing upon Jebel Musa in the stricter sense, the southern peak of
the central group, which tradition had already indicated as the scene of the giving of the
law, as the true Mount Sinai, where Moses received the laws from God, and the plain of
Sebayeh as the spot to which Moses led the people (i.e., the men) on the third day, out of
the camp of God and through the Sebayeh valley (Exo_19:16). For this plain is far better
adapted to be the scene of such a display of the nation, than the plain of er Rahah: first,
because the hills in the background slope gradually upwards in the form of an
amphitheatre, and could therefore hold a larger number of people;
(Note: “Sinai falls towards the south for about 2000 feet into low granite hills, and
then into a large plain, which is about 1600 feet broad and nearly five miles long, and
rises like an amphitheatre opposite to the mountain both on the south and east. It is
a plain that seems made to accommodate a large number gathered round the foot of
the mountain” (Strauss, p. 135).)
whereas the mountains which surround the plain of er Rahah are so steep and rugged,
that they could not be made use of in arranging the people: - and secondly, because the
gradual sloping of the plain upwards, both on the east and south, would enable even the
furthest rows to see Mount Sinai in all its majestic grandeur; whereas the plain of er
Rahah slopes downwards towards the north, so that persons standing in the background
would be completely prevented by those in front from seeing Ras es Sufsafeh. - If,
however, the plain of es Sebayeh so entirely answers to all the topographical data of the
Bible, that we must undoubtedly regard it as the spot where the people of God were led
up to the foot of the mountain, we cannot possibly fix upon the plain of er Rahah as the
place of encampment in the desert of Sinai. The very expression “desert of Sinai,” which
is applied to the place of encampment, is hardly reconcilable with this opinion. For
example, if the Sinai of the Old Testament is identical with the present Jebel Musa, and
the whole group of mountains bore the name of Horeb, the plain of er Rahah could not
with propriety be called the desert of Sinai, for Sinai cannot even be seen from it, but is
completely hidden by the Ras es Sufsafeh of Horeb. Moreover, the road from the plain of
er Rahah into the plain of es Sebayeh through the Sebayeh valley is so long and so
narrow, that the people of Israel, who numbered more than 600,000 men, could not
possibly have been conducted from the camp in er Rahah into the Sebayeh plain, and so
up to Mount Sinai, and then, after being placed in order there, and listening to the
promulgation of the law, have returned to the camp again, all in a single day. The
Sebayeh valley, or the road from the Sheikh valley to the commencement of the plain of
Sebayeh, is, it is true, only an hour long. But we have to add to this the distance from the
point at which the Sebayeh valley opens into the Sheikh valley to the western end of the
plain of er Rahah, viz., two hours' journey, and the length of the plain of Sebayeh itself,
which is more than five miles long; so that the Israelites, at least those who were
encamped in the western part of the plain of er Rahah, would have to travel four or five
hours before they could be posted at the foot of Sinai.
(Note: Some Englishmen who accompanied F. A. Strauss “had taken three-
quarters of an hour for a fast walk from the Sebayeh plain to Wady es Sheikh;” so
that it is not too much to reckon an hour for ordinary walking. Döbel tool quite six
hours to go round Horeb-Sinai, which is only a little larger than Jebel Deir; so that at

least three hours must be reckoned as necessary to accomplish the walk from the
eastern end of the plain of er Rahah through the Wady Sebayeh to the foot of Sinai.
And Robinson took fifty minutes to go with camels from the commencement of the
Sheikh valley, at the end of the Convent Valley, to the point at which it is joined by
the valley of Sebayeh (Palestine i. p. 215).)
Tischendorf calls this a narrow, bad road, which the Israelites were obliged to pass
through to Sinai, when they came out of the Sheikh valley. At any rate, this is true of the
southern end of the valley of Sebayeh, from the point at which it enters the plain of
Sebayeh, where we can hardly picture it to ourselves as broad enough for two hundred
men to walk abreast in an orderly procession through the valley;
(Note: We are still in want of exact information from travellers as to the breadth of
the southern end of the valley of Sebayeh. Ritter merely states, on the ground of MS
notes in Strauss' diary, that “at first it is somewhat contracted on account of
projections in the heights by which it is bounded towards the south, but it still
remains more than 500 feet broad.” And “when it turns towards the north-west, the
wady is considerably widened; so that at the narrowest points it is more than 600
feet broad. And very frequently, at the different curves in the valley, large basins are
formed, which would hold a considerable number of people.”)
consequently, 600,000 men would have required two hours' time simply to pass through
the narrow southern end of the valley of Sebayeh. Now, it is clear enough from the
narrative itself that Moses did not take merely the elders, as the representatives of the
nation, from the camp to the mountain to meet with God (Exo_19:17), but took the
whole nation, that is to say, all the adult males of 20 years old and upwards; and this is
especially evident from the command so emphatically and repeatedly given, that no one
was to break through the hedge placed round the mountain. It may also be inferred from
the design of the revelation itself, which was intended to make the deepest impression
upon the whole nation of that majesty of Jehovah and the holiness of His law.
Under these circumstances, if the people had been encamped in the plain of er Rahah
and the Sheikh valley, they could not have been conducted to the foot of Sinai and
stationed in the plain of Sebayeh in the course of six hours, and then, after hearing the
revelation of the law, have returned to their tents on the same day; even assuming, as
Kurtz does (iii. p. 117), that “the people were overpowered by the majesty of the
promulgation of the law, and fled away in panic;” for flight through so narrow a valley
would have caused inevitable confusion, and therefore would have prevented rather than
facilitated rapidity of movement. There is not a word, however, in the original text about
a panic, or about the people flying (see Exo_20:18): it is merely stated, that as soon as
the people witnessed the alarming phenomena connected with the descent of God upon
the mountain, they trembled in the camp (Exo_19:16), and that when they were
conducted to the foot of the mountain, and “saw the thunderings, and the lightnings,
and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking,” and heard the solemn
promulgation of the decalogue, they trembled (‫עוּ‬ֻ‫נ‬ָ‫,י‬ Exo_19:16), and said to Moses,
through their elders and the heads of tribes, that they did not wish God to speak directly
to them any more, but wished Moses to speak to God and listen to His words;
whereupon, after God had expressed His approval of these words of the people, Moses
directed the people to return to their tents (Exo_20:18.; Deu_5:23-30). If, again, we take
into consideration, that after Moses had stationed the people at the foot of the mountain,
he went up to God to the summit of Sinai, and came down again at the command of God
to repeat the charge to the people, not to break through the hedge round the mountain
(Exo_19:20-25), and it was not till after this, that God proclaimed the decalogue, and

that this going up and down must also have taken up time, it cannot have been for so
very short a time that the people continued standing round the bottom of the mountain.
But if all these difficulties be regarded as trivial, and we include the evening and part of
the night in order to afford time for the people to return to their tents; not only is there
nothing in the biblical text to require the hypothesis which assigns the encampment to
the plain of er Rahah, and the posting of the people at Sinai to the plain of Sebayeh, but
there are various allusions which seem rather to show that such a hypothesis is
inadmissible. It is very obvious from Exo_24:17, that the glory of the Lord upon the top
of the mountain could be seen from the camp; and from Exo_34:1-3, that the camp, with
both the people and their cattle in it, was so immediately in the neighbourhood of Sinai,
that the people could easily have ascended the mountain, and the cattle could have
grazed upon it. Now this does not apply in the least to the plain of er Rahah, from which
not even the top of Jebel Musa can be seen, and where the cattle could not possibly have
grazed upon it, but only to the plain of Sebayeh; and therefore proves that the camp in
“the desert of Sinai” is not to be sought for in the plain of er Rahah, but in the plain of
Sebayeh, which reaches to the foot of Sinai. If it should be objected, on the other hand,
that there is not room in this plain for the camp of the whole nation, this objection is
quite as applicable to the plain of er Rahah, which is not large enough in itself to take in
the entire camp, without including a large portion of the Sheikh valley; and it loses all its
force from the fact, that the mountains by which the plain of Sebayeh is bounded, both
on the south and east, rise so gently and gradually, that they could be made use of for the
camp, and on these sides therefore the space is altogether unlimited, and would allow of
the widest dispersion of the people and their flocks.
CALVI ,"1.In the third month. This chapter informs us by what means God
rendered the people attentive and teachable when He would promulgate His laws.
He had, indeed, previously delivered the rule of a just and pious life, but by writing
the Law on tables, and by then adding its exposition, He not only embraced the
perfect doctrine of piety and righteousness, but ratified it by a solemn rite, so that
the recognition of it might remain and flourish in future times. And this is the main
and principal thing which the prophets celebrate in the redemption of the people;
and in this, as in a mirror, propose for consideration the image of the renewed
Church, that God made known His testimonies to His redeemed, and bound the
people, whom He had purchased, to Himself by a new covenant. He had indeed
made with Abraham an eternal, and inviolable covenant; but because it had grown
into disregard from the lapse of time, and the carelessness of mankind, it became
needful that it should be again renewed. To this end, then, it was engraved upon the
tables of stone, and written in a book, that the marvelous grace, which God had
conferred on the race of Abraham, should never sink into oblivion. But in the first
place we must observe that, although the Law is a testimony of God’s gratuitous
adoption, and teaches that salvation is based upon His mercy, and invites men to
call upon God with sure confidence, yet it has this peculiar property, that it;
covenants conditionally. Therefore it is worth while to distinguish between the
general doctrine, which was delivered by Moses, and the special command which he
received. Moses everywhere exhorts men, by holding forth the hope of pardon, to
reconcile themselves to God; and, whenever he prescribes expiatory rites, he
doubtless encourages miserable sinners to have a good hope, and bears witness that
God will be merciful to them. Meanwhile this office was separately imposed upon

him, to demand perfect; righteousness of the people, and to promise them a reward,
as if by compact, upon no other condition than that they should fulfill whatever was
enjoined them, but to threaten and to denounce vengeance against them if ever they
wandered from the way. It is certain indeed that the same covenant, of which
Abraham had been the minister and keeper, was repeated to his descendants by the
instrumentality of Moses; and yet Paul declares, that the Law “was added because
of transgressions,” (Galatians 3:19,) and opposes it to the promise given to
Abraham; because, as he is treating of the peculiar office, power, and end of the
Law, he separates it from the promises of grace. With the same import, he elsewhere
calls it “the ministration of death,” and “the letter that killeth.” (2 Corinthians 3:6.)
Again, in another place, he states that it “worketh wrath,” (Romans 4:15;) as if by
its arraignment it inflicted a deadly wound on the human race, and left them no
hope of salvation. In this preparation, then, wherein God instructed the people to
reverence and fear, a twofold object may be perceived; for, since men’s minds are
partly swollen with pride and haughtiness, and partly stupified by indifference, they
must needs be either humbled or awakened, in order to their reception of divine
teaching with the attention it deserves; nor can any be prepared to obey God, except
he be bowed down and subdued by fear. Moreover, they then begin to be afraid
when God’s majesty is displayed to inspire them with terror. Thus, therefore, let the
fact that the authority of the Law was ratified by many signs and wonders, teach us
that this is the beginning of piety and faith in God’s children. To this end also did
God shake the earth, to arouse men’s hearts from their slumber, or to correct them
by taming their pride. This object is common to the Law, the Prophets, and the
Gospel, and to the whole sum of divine teaching, to which due honor is never paid,
unless God’s majesty first shines forth, whereby He casts down all the haughtiness
of the world. But we must not pass over what I lately asserted to be peculiar to the
Law, via, to fill men’s minds with fear, and by setting forth its terrible curse, to cut
off the hope of salvation; for, whilst it consists of three parts, each of them tends to
the same end, that all should acknowledge themselves deserving of the judgment of
eternal death, because in it God sustains no other character than that of a Judge,
who, after having rigidly exacted what is due to Him, promises only a just reward,
and threatens the transgressors with vengeance. But who will be found to be a
perfect keeper of the Law? ay, it is certain that all, from the least to the greatest,
are guilty of transgression, wherefore God’s wrath overhangs them all This is what
Paul means, when he writes that believers
“have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but the spirit of adoption,
whereby they cry, Abba, Father,”
(Romans 8:15;)
showing how much better is our condition than that of the old fathers, because the
Law kept them enslaved in its bondage, whilst the Gospel delivers us from anxiety,
and frees us from the stings of conscience; for all must necessarily tremble, and
finally be overwhelmed by despair, who seek for salvation by works; but peace and
rest only exist in the mercy of God. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
pursues this idea at greater length, where he says,

“Ye are not come unto the mount that must be touched, and that burned with fire,
nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the
voice of words: which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be
spoken to them any more, etc., (whence Moses said I exceedingly fear and quake:)
but ye are come unto Mount Sion,” etc.
(Hebrews 12:18.)
The antithesis here proves, that what was entrusted to Moses is separate and distinct
from the Gospel; because God, who appeared in the Law as an avenger, now with
fatherly kindness gently invites us unto salvation, and soothes our troubled minds
by offering us the forgiveness of our sins. ow, Paul shows us that there is no
contradiction in this diversity, because the people were taught by the Law not to
seek for salvation anywhere but in the grace of Christ, and being convinced of the
horrible condemnation under which they lay, were driven by fear to implore God’s
mercy; for, as men are apt to (207) allow themselves in sin, “sin (as Paul says,
Romans 5:13) is not imputed, where there is no law;” but those, who delight
themselves in darkness, are by the teaching of the Law brought before God’s
tribunal, that they may fully perceive their filthiness and be ashamed. Thus is Paul’s
saying fulfilled, that the life of the Law is man’s death. (Romans 7:9.) ow we
understand why the promulgation of the Law was ratified by so many miracles; viz.,
because, in general, the authority of the divine teaching was to be established among
the dull and careless, or the proud and rebellious; and, secondly, because the Law
was propounded to men, who sought the means of flattering themselves, as the
mirror of the curse, so that, in themselves lost, they might fly to the refuge of
pardon. I have thought it advisable to say thus much by way of preface, for the
purpose of directing my readers to the proper object of the history, which is here
related. But Moses first recounts that the people came, at a single march, from
Rephidim into the region of Sinai; for so I interpret it, that there was no intervening
station; for their interpretation is forced and unnatural, who take “the same day”
for the beginning of the month.
BE SO , "Exodus 19:1. In the third month — After they came out of Egypt,
including the latter part of May and the former part of June. It is computed that the
law was given just fifty days after their coming out of Egypt, in remembrance of
which the feast of pentecost was observed the fiftieth day after the passover, and in
compliance with which the Spirit was poured out upon the apostles, at the feast of
pentecost, fifty days after the death of Christ.
Mount Sinai was a place which nature, not art, had made conspicuous, for it was the
highest in all that range of mountains. Thus God put contempt upon cities and
palaces, setting up his pavilion on the top of a mountain, in a barren desert. It is
called Sinai, from the multitude of thorny bushes that overspread it.
COFFMA , "Introduction
This chapter may be called, "Getting Ready for the Covenant," for that is the theme
of it throughout. The children of Israel come to Sinai, and Moses ascends the

mountain (Exodus 19:1-3); Israel called to be a holy nation of royal priests unto God
(Exodus 19:4-6); Israel makes a solemn promise of faithfulness to God (Exodus
19:7-10); the three-day period of sanctification (Exodus 19:11-15); great wonders
that occurred at Sinai (Exodus 19:16-20); the people again warned, only Moses and
Aaron called to go up into the mountain (Exodus 19:21-25) - these are the
subdivisions of the chapter.
Verse 1
"In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of
Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. And when they were
departed from Rephidim, and were come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped
in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mount. And Moses went up
unto God, and Jehovah called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou
say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel."
"In the third month ... the same day of the month ..." Scholars are uncertain as to
the meaning of this last phrase; and, as a result of this, it is impossible to pinpoint
accurately the exact time of their coming to Sinai. However, the traditional way of
understanding this appears to us to be absolutely accurate. Jamieson fixed the time
of their arrival at 45 days after the Passover,[1] basing this upon the meaning
ascribed by the Jews to the phrase, "the same day of the month, the first day of the
month. If that is the case, then two days elapsed in: (1) making the encampment;
and (2) returning the people's answers to God; and three more days elapsed during
the three-day period of their sanctification, making five more days in all before the
giving of the Law! The principal thing that commends this calculation to us is that
this understanding makes the giving of God's Law to have occurred on "The
Fiftieth Day," the Pentecost, which corresponds exactly to the .T. revelation that
the giving of the Gospel to mankind also occurred on the Pentecost (Acts 2).
Despite the fact that many scholars deny this understanding of the place, and in
spite of the observation of Keil that, "The Jewish tradition that assigns the giving of
the law to the fiftieth day after the Passover is of far too recent date to pass for
historical,"[2] we still adhere to the view expressed by Jamieson. First, there is
nothing in the text that denies this possibility; and second, we have here, in all
probability, another example of light shed by one of the Testaments upon the other.
It is the .T. truth that explains this passage.
Some translations, such as the ew English Bible, and the new translation of the
Torah, render "the new moon" instead of month here, but as Keil said, "The
Hebrew word here is never rendered `new moon' in the Pentateuch."[3] This is
merely another case of "Reed Sea" speculation - erroneous, of course.
So much for WHE all this happened. The place of WHERE is also disputed and
argued about almost endlessly. However, the traditional site assigned to Sinai is
amply supported by all of the evidence that is needed. The preponderant opinion of
all segments of faith, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant, with near unanimity, accepts
the traditional identification as Jebel Musa. Dummelow's presentation of this is:

"The prodigious mountain block of Ras es Sufsafeh, is identified by Dean Stanley
and others as the mount on which the Law was given. It rises some 7,000 feet, sheer
from the plain like a huge altar. Some, however (in fact the majority) believe that
the actual mount of the Law was another peak of the same range, southward, called
Jebel Musa, the traditional site. The whole district has been described as one of the
most awe-inspiring regions on the face of the earth."[4]
There is really no good reason to set aside the Monastery of St. Catherine's at the
foot of Mount Sinai being quite near the actual place. In the general sense, Mount
Sinai is located near the southern apex of the Sinaitic peninsula. As Huey expressed
it: "For hundreds of years Jebul Musa (Mountain of Moses), some 7,647 feet high in
the southern Sinai peninsula has found the greatest number of supporters as the
actual place."[5] The whole question of exactly WHERE the Law was given is of
much less importance than WHAT was done there!
"And Moses went up unto God ..." We should have expected Moses to do this, for
God had told him that Moses and the children of Israel would worship God "upon
this mountain" (Exodus 3:12). Moses and the people had now indeed come to that
"mountain", and Moses promptly went up into the mountain to procure the
instructions on just how that was to be done.
"The house of Jacob ..." "This expression does not occur anywhere else in the
Pentateuch."[6] This is an important fact because of the identication it makes
certain as to what "covenant" is meant in Jeremiah's reference to the "house of
Judah" (Jeremiah 31:31). Judah was "of Jacob" and no other. Furthermore, the
apostasy of the other tribes made it inappropriate to use "Jacob" without a
delimitation.
COKE, "Exodus 19:1. In the third month—the same day— Houbigant shews
clearly, that this means the first day of the month; for the Jews, says he, celebrate
the pentecost fifty days after the passover. From the departure out of Egypt to the
coming to Sinai, were forty-five days, for they came out the fifteenth day of the first
month; from which day, to the first day of the third month, forty-five days are
numbered. On the second day of this third month, Moses ascended into the
mountain, when three days were given to the people to purify themselves: you have,
therefore, the fourth day of the third month, or the forty-ninth day from the
departure out of Egypt. On the next day, which was the fiftieth, after the celebration
of the passover, the glory of God appeared in the Mount; commemorative of which
miracle, the Jews celebrate the feast of Pentecost. The verse might more properly be
read, the children of Israel, in the third month after they had left the land of Egypt,
on the first day of the month, came into the wilderness of Sinai. Bishop Kidder very
judiciously observes, that this was a fit time and place for them to receive their law.
They had, a little before, received many proofs of the power of God, and of his care
of them, which might dispose them to obedience to his law. They were in a
wilderness, in a place of recess and leisure: they were freed from the slavery of
Egypt, and from the idolatrous examples of the Egyptians. On the other hand, they
were short of Canaan, and so not diverted by wars with that people, nor acquainted

with their abominations, nor rendered dull and stupid by the plenty and
prosperities of that land. On all which accounts this was a most fit season for the
solemnity.
CO STABLE, "Verses 1-6
The Israelites arrived at the base of the mountain where God gave them the law
about three months after they had left Egypt, in May-June ( Exodus 19:1). The
mountain in the Sinai range that most scholars have regarded as the mountain peak
referred to in this chapter stands in the southeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula. Its
name in Arabic is Jebel Musa, mountain of Moses. [ ote: See Israel Finkelstein,
"Raider of the Lost Mountain-An Israeli Looks at the Most Recent Attempt to
Locate Mt. Sinai," Biblical Archaeology Review15:4 (July-August1988):46-50.]
There is a natural slope to the land to the southeast of this peak, and another plain
to the north, which would have afforded Israel a good view of the mountain if the
people camped there. However the location of biblical Mt. Sinai continues to be
uncertain. The nation stayed at Mt. Sinai11months ( umbers 10:11). The record of
their experiences here continues through umbers 10:10.
Many reliable scholars have considered Exodus 19:3-6 the very heart of the
Pentateuch because they contain the classic expression of the nature and purpose of
the theocratic covenant that God made with Israel, the Mosaic Covenant.
God gave the Mosaic Law specifically "to the house of Jacob ... the sons of Israel" (
Exodus 19:3). [ ote: For an illustration of the confusion that failure to observe this
fact can create in teaching on the Christian"s relationship to the Law, see Sakae
Kubo, "Why then the Law?" Ministry (March1980), pp12-14.]
"The image of the eagle [ Exodus 19:4] is based on the fact that the eagle, when its
offspring learns [sic] to fly, will catch them on its wings when they fall." [ ote:
Gispen, p179.]
"Without doubt Exodus 19:4-6 is the most theologically significant text in the book
of Exodus , for it is the linchpin between the patriarchal promises of the sonship of
Israel and the Sinaitic Covenant whereby Israel became the servant nation of
Yahweh." [ ote: Merrill, "A Theology . . .," p32. Cf. William J. Dumbrell,
Covenant and Creation, pp80-81.]
God"s promise to Israel here ( Exodus 19:5-6) went beyond what He had promised
Abraham. If Israel would be obedient to God, He would do three things for the
nation (cf. Joshua 24:15).
1. Israel would become God"s special treasure ( Exodus 19:5). This means that
Israel would enjoy a unique relationship with God compared with all other nations.
This was not due to any special goodness in Israel but strictly to the sovereign choice
of God.
2. Israel would become a kingdom of priests ( Exodus 19:6). This is the first

occurrence in Scripture of the word "kingdom" as referring to God"s rule through
men on earth. A priest stands between God and people. Israel could become a nation
of mediators standing between God and the other nations, responsible for bringing
them to God and God to them. Israel would not be a kingdom run by politicians
depending on strength and wit but by priests depending on faith in Yahweh: a
servant nation rather than a ruling nation. [ ote: Durham, p263.]
3. Israel would become a holy nation ( Exodus 19:6). "Holy" means set apart and
therefore different. The Israelites would become different from other peoples
because they would devote themselves to God and separate from sin and defilement
as they obeyed the law of God. In these notes I have capitalized "Law" when
referring to the Pentateuch, the Law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments and have
used the lowercase "law" for all other references to law.
In short, Israel could have become a testimony to the whole world of how glorious it
can be to live under the government of God. The people experienced these blessings
only partially because their obedience was partial. Israel"s disobedience to the
Mosaic Covenant did not invalidate any of God"s promises to Abraham, however.
Those promises did not rest on Israel"s obedience, as these did (cf. Genesis 15:17-21
and Exodus 19:5-6). [ ote: See Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church,"
in Issues in Dispensationalism, pp113-15 , for a good discussion of Israel"s national
election and how this relates to the individual election of Israelites.]
CO STABLE, "Verses 1-11
B. The establishment of the Mosaic Covenant19:1-24:11
The Lord had liberated Israel from bondage in Egypt, but now He adopted the
nation into a special relationship with Himself.
" ow begins the most sublime section in the whole Book. The theme of this section
is supremely significant, playing a role of decisive importance in the history of Israel
and of humanity as a whole." [ ote: Cassuto, p223.]
At Sinai, Israel received the law and the tabernacle. The law facilitated the
obedience of God"s redeemed people, and the tabernacle facilitated their worship.
Thus the law and the tabernacle deal with the two major expressions of the faith of
the people redeemed by the grace and power of God: obedience and worship.
Here begins the fifth dispensation, the dispensation of the law. It ended with the
death of Christ, who alone fulfilled all its requirements and, as a second Moses,
superceded it with His own teaching. God gave the Israelites the law "because of
[their] transgressions" ( Galatians 3:19), which we have seen they committed after
their redemption. The law taught the wayward Israelites, and teaches all readers of
this history, the awesome holiness of God ( Exodus 19:10-25) and the exceeding
sinfulness of man ( Romans 7:13; 1 Timothy 1:8-10). It also taught and teaches the
necessity of obedience ( Jeremiah 7:23-24), the universality of human failure (

Romans 3:19-20; Romans 3:23), and the marvel of God"s grace that provided a way
whereby redeemed sinners could have ongoing relationship with God ( Romans
3:21-22).
The law did not change the provisions or abrogate the promises that God gave in the
Abrahamic Covenant. God did not give it as a means of justification for unbelievers
( Acts 15:10-11; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:3-9; Galatians 3:14;
Galatians 3:17; Galatians 3:24-25) but as a means of sanctification, rules for living,
for a redeemed people. It clarified for them that purity and holiness should
characterize their lives as the people of God. It was "child training" through
disciplinary restriction and correction designed to prepare them for the coming of
Christ when they as a people would "come of age" ( Deuteronomy 6:24; Galatians
3:24; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 4:1-7; Titus 2:11-13). The Israelites, however,
misinterpreted the purpose of the law and sought to obtain righteousness by their
good deeds and ceremonial ordinances ( Acts 15:1; Romans 9:31 to Romans 10:3; 1
Timothy 1:8-10). Israel"s history was one long record of violating the law, even to
rejecting their own Messiah whom Moses told them to heed ( Deuteronomy 18:15).
The Mosaic Covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic Covenant in the sense that
it was a significant, intimate agreement between God and Abraham"s descendants.
By observing it the Israelites could achieve their purpose as a nation. This purpose
was to experience God"s blessing and to be a blessing to all nations of the earth (
Genesis 12:2). In contrast to the Abrahamic Covenant, Israel had responsibilities to
fulfill to obtain God"s promised blessings ( Exodus 19:5). It was, therefore, a
conditional covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant-as well as the Davidic and ew
Covenants that contain expansions of the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant-was
unconditional.
A further contrast is this.
"Whereas the Sinaitic covenant was based on an already accomplished act of grace
and issued in stringent stipulations, the patriarchal covenant rested only on the
divine promise and demanded of the worshipper only his trust (e.g, ch. Exodus
15:6)." [ ote: Bright, pp91-92.]
"The covenant with Israel at Sinai is to bring Israel into a position of mediatorial
service." [ ote: Eugene H. Merrill, "The Mosaic Covenant: A Proposal for Its
Theological Significance," Exegesis and Exposition3:1 (Fall1988):29.]
"The major difference between the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant is
that the former was conditional and also was ad interim, that Isaiah , it was a
covenant for a limited period, beginning with Moses and ending with Christ....
"In contrast to the other covenants, the Mosaic covenant, though it had provisions
for grace and forgiveness, nevertheless builds on the idea that obedience to God is
necessary for blessing. While this to some extent is true in every dispensation, the
Mosaic covenant was basically a works covenant rather than a grace covenant. The

works principle, however, was limited to the matter of blessing in this life and was
not related at all to the question of salvation for eternity." [ ote: John F. Walvoord,
"The ew Covenant," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp191-92.]
The Mosaic Covenant is the heart of the Pentateuch.
"First, it should be pointed out that the most prominent event and the most far-
reaching theme in the Pentateuch, viewed entirely on its own, is the covenant
between Yahweh and Israel established at Mount Sinai....
"1) The author of the Pentateuch wants to draw a connecting link between God"s
original plan of blessing for mankind and his establishment of the covenant with
Israel at Sinai. Put simply, the author sees the covenant at Sinai as God"s plan to
restore his blessing to mankind through the descendants of Abraham ( Genesis 12:1-
3; Exodus 2:24).
"2) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that the Covenant at Sinai failed to
restore God"s blessing to mankind because Israel failed to trust God and obey his
will.
"3) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show that God"s promise to restore the
blessing would ultimately succeed because God himself would one day give to Israel
a heart to trust and obey God ( Deuteronomy 30:1-10)." [ ote: John H. Sailhamer,
"Exegetical otes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a," Trinity Journal5 S (Spring1984):75 , 76.]
The writer interrupted the narrative sections of Exodus with blocks of other
explanatory, qualifying, and cultic material in the chapters that follow. [ ote:
Durham, p258.]
Another scholar observed the following chiastic structure in chapters19-24. [ ote:
Joe M. Sprinkle, "Law and arrative in Exodus 19-24 ," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, 47:2 (June2004):242.]
A arrative: the covenant offered ( Exodus 19:3-25)
B Law: the Decalogue ( Exodus 20:1-17)
C arrative: the people"s fear ( Exodus 20:18-21)
B" Law: the Book of the Covenant ( Exodus 20:22 to Exodus 23:33)
A" arrative: the covenant accepted ( Exodus 24:1-11)
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY OF TEXTS, "Verses 1-25
Exodus 19:4-5
A great deliverance, whether of a man or of a society, is a great claim on the life that

is saved. The Israelites carried with them a grand inheritance of holiness and truth.
They were saved because of it. As a nation they betrayed it.
—Edward Thring.
References.—XIX:6 , 6.—Bishop Gibson, The Old Testament in the ew, p31.
XIX:6.—Bishop Diggle, Sermons for Daily Life, p100.
Exodus 19:10
After the deification of the emperors we are told that it was considered impious so
much as to use any coarse expression in the presence of their images. To Marius the
whole of life seemed full of sacred presences demanding of him a similar
collectedness.
—Pater, Marius the Epicurean, i. p24.
Exodus 19:11
Lady Beaumont told me that when she was a child, previously to her saying her
prayers, she endeavoured to think of a mountain or great river, or something great,
in order to raise up her soul and kindle it.
—Coleridge, Anima Poetæ, p56.
Exodus 19:16
Rituals, Liturgies, Credos, Sinai Thunder: I know more or less the history of these;
the rise, progress, decline and fall of these. Can thunder from all the thirty-two
azimuths, repeated daily for centuries of years, make God"s laws more godlike to
me? Brother, o. Perhaps I am grown to be a man now; and do not heed the
thunder and the terror any longer! Perhaps I am above being frightened; perhaps it
is not Fear, but Reverence alone, that shall now lead me.
—Carlyle, Past and Present.
Reference.—XIX:20.—K. Moody-Stuart, Light from the Holy Hills, p35.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY, "AT SI AI.
Exodus 19:1-25.
In the third month from the Exodus, and on the selfsame day (which addition fixes
the date precisely), the people reached the wilderness of Sinai. This answers fairly to
the date of Pentecost, which was afterwards connected by tradition with the giving
of the law. And therefore Pentecost was the right time for the gift of the Holy Ghost,

bringing with Him the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and that freedom from
servile Jewish obedience which is not attained by violating law, but by being imbued
in its spirit, by the love which is the fulfilling of the law.
* * * * *
There is among the solemn solitudes of Sinai a wide amphitheatre, reached by two
converging valleys, and confronted by an enormous perpendicular cliff, the Ras
Sufsafeh--a "natural altar," before which the nation had room to congregate, awed
by the stern magnificence of the approach, and by the intense loneliness and
desolation of the surrounding scene, and thus prepared for the unparalleled
revelation which awaited them.
It is the manner of God to speak through nature and the senses to the soul. We
cannot imagine the youth of the Baptist spent in azareth, nor of Jesus in the desert.
Elijah, too, was led into the wilderness to receive the vision of God, and the agony of
Jesus was endured at night, and secluded by the olives from the paschal moon. It is
by another application of the same principle that the settled Jewish worship was
bright with music and splendid with gold and purple; and the notion that the
sublime and beautiful in nature and art cannot awaken the feelings to which
religion appeals, is as shallow as the notion that when these feelings are awakened
all is won.
What happens next is a protest against this latter extreme. Awe is one thing: the
submission of the will is another. And therefore Moses was stopped when about to
ascend the mountain, there to keep the solemn appointment that was made when
God said, "This shall be the token unto thee that I have sent thee: When thou hast
brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain"
(Exodus 3:12). His own sense of the greatness of the crisis perhaps needed to be
deepened. Certainly the nation had to be pledged, induced to make a deliberate
choice, now first, as often again, under Joshua and Samuel, and when Elijah
invoked Jehovah upon Carmel. (Joshua 24:24; 1 Samuel 12:14; 1 Kings 18:21, 1
Kings 18:39.)
It is easy to speak of pledges and formal declarations lightly, but they have their
warrant in many such Scriptural analogies, nor should we easily find a church,
careful to deal with souls, which has not employed them in some form, whether after
the Anglican and Lutheran fashion, by confirmation, or in the less formal methods
of other Protestant communions, or even by delaying baptism itself until it becomes,
for the adult in Christian lands, what it is to the convert from false creeds.
Therefore the Lord called to Moses as he climbed the steep, and offered through
him a formal covenant to the people.
"Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob,(33) and tell the children of Israel: Ye
have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and
brought you unto Myself."

The appeal is to their personal experience and their gratitude: will this be enough?
will they accept His yoke, as every convert must, not knowing what it may involve,
not yet having His demands specified and His commandments before their eyes,
content to believe that whatever is required of them will be good, because the
requirement is from God? Thus did Abraham, who went forth, not knowing
whither, but knowing that he was divinely guided. " ow, therefore, if ye will obey
My voice indeed and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto
Me from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine, and ye shall be unto Me a
kingdom of priests and a holy nation."
Thus God conveys to them, more explicitly than hitherto, the fact that He is the
universal Lord, not ruling one land or nation only, nor, as the Pentateuch is charged
with teaching, their tutelary deity among many others. Thus also the seeds are sown
in them of a wholesome and rational self-respect, such as the Psalmist felt, who
asked "What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?" yet realised that such
mindfulness gave to man a real dignity, made him but little lower than the angels,
and crowned him with glory and honour.
Abolish religion, and mankind will divide into two classes,--one in which vanity,
unchecked by any spiritual superior, will obey no restraints of law, and another of
which the conscious pettiness will aspire to no dignity of holiness, and shrink from
no dishonour of sin. It is only the presence of a loving God which can unite in us the
sense of humility and greatness, as having nothing and yet possessing all things, and
valued by God as His "peculiar treasure."(34)
And with a reasonable self-respect should come a noble and yet sober dignity--"Ye
shall be a kingdom of priests," a dynasty (for such is the meaning) of persons
invested with royal and also with priestly rank. This was spoken just before the law
gave the priesthood into the hands of one tribe; and thus we learn that Levi and
Aaron were not to supplant the nation, but to represent it.
ow, this double rank is the property of redeemed humanity: we are "a kingdom
and priests unto God." Yet the laity of the Corinthian Church were rebuked for a
self-asserting and mutinous enjoyment of their rank: "Ye have reigned as kings
without us"; and others there were in this Christian dispensation who "perished in
the gainsaying of Korah" (1 Corinthians 4:8; Jude 1:11).
If the words "He hath made us a kingdom and priests" furnish any argument
against the existence of an ordained ministry now, then there should have been no
Jewish priesthood, for the same words are here. And is it supposed that this
assertion only began to be true when the apostles died? Certainly there is a kind of
self-assertion in the ministry which they condemn. But if they are opposed to its
existence, alas for the Pastoral Epistles! It was because the function belonged to all,
that no man might arrogate it who was not commissioned to act on behalf of all.
But while the individual may not assert himself to the unsettling of church order,

the privilege is still common property. All believers have boldness to enter into the
holiest place of all. All are called upon to rule for God "over a few things," to
establish a kingdom of God within, and thus to receive a crown of life, and to sit
with Jesus upon His throne. The very honours by which Israel was drawn to God
are offered to us all, as it is written, "We are the circumcision," "We are Abraham's
seed and heirs according to the promise" (Philippians 3:3; Galatians 3:29).
To this appeal the nation responded gladly. They could feel that indeed they had
been sustained by God as the eagle bears her young--not grasping them in her claws,
like other birds, but as if enthroned between her wings, and sheltered by her body,
which interposed between the young and any arrow of the hunter. Thus, say the
Rabbinical interpreters, did the pillar of cloud intervene between Israel and the
Egyptians. If the image were to be pressed so far, we could now find a much closer
analogy for the eagle "preferring itself to be pierced rather than to witness the death
of its young" (Kalisch). But far more tender, and very touching in its domestic
homeliness, is the metaphor of Him Whose discourses teem with allusions to the Old
Testament, yet Who preferred to compare Himself to a hen gathering her chickens
under her wing.
With the adhesion of Israel to the covenant, Moses returned to God. And the Lord
said, "Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak
with thee, and may also believe thee for ever."
The design was to deepen their reverence for the Lawgiver Whose law they should
now receive; to express by lessons, not more dreadful than the plagues of Egypt, but
more vivid and sublime, the tremendous grandeur of Him Who was making a
covenant with them, Who had borne them on His wings and called them His
firstborn Son, Whom therefore they might be tempted to approach with undue
familiarity, were it not for the mountain that burned up to heaven, the voice of the
trumpet waxing louder and louder, and the Appearance so fearful that Moses said,
"I exceedingly fear and quake" (to phantazomenon-- Hebrews 12:21).
When thus the Deity became terrible, the envoy would be honoured also.
But it is important to observe that these terrible manifestations were to cease. Like
the impressions produced by sickness, by sudden deaths, by our own imminent
danger, the emotion would subside, but the conviction should remain: they should
believe Moses for ever. Emotions are like the swellings of the ile: they subside
again; but they ought to leave a fertilising deposit behind.
That the impression might not be altogether passive, and therefore ephemeral, the
people were bidden to "sanctify themselves"; all that is common and secular must
be suspended for awhile; and it is worth notice that, as when the family of Jacob put
away their strange gods, so now the Israelites must wash their clothes (cf. Genesis
35:2). For one's vestment is a kind of outer self, and has been with the man in the
old occupations from which he desires to purify himself. It was therefore that when
Jehu was made king, and when Jesus entered Jerusalem in triumph, men put their

garments under their chief to express their own subjection (2 Kings 9:13; Matthew
21:7). Much of the philosophy of Carlyle is latent in these ancient laws and usages.
Moreover, the mountain was to be fenced from the risk of profanation by any
sudden impulsive movement of the crowd, and even a beast that touched it should
be slain by such weapons as men could hurl without themselves pursuing it. Only
when the trumpet blew a long summons might the appointed ones come up to the
mount (Exodus 19:13).
On the third day, after a soul-searching interval, there were thunders and
lightnings, and a cloud, and the trumpet blast; and while all the people trembled,
Moses led them forth to meet with God. Again the narrative reverts to the terrible
phenomena--the fire like the smoke of a furnace (called by an Egyptian name which
only occurs in the Pentateuch), and the whole mountain quaking. Then, since his
commission was now to be established, Moses spake, and the Lord answered him
with a voice. And when he again climbed the mountain, it became necessary to send
him back with yet another warning, whether his example was in danger of
emboldening others to exercise their newly given priesthood, or the very excess of
terror exercised its well-known fascinating power, as men in a burning ship have
been seen to leap into the flames.
And the priests also, who come near to God, should sanctify themselves. It has been
asked who these were, since the Levitical institutions were still non-existent (Exodus
19:22-24). But it is certain that the heads of houses exercised priestly functions; and
it is not impossible that the elders of Israel who came to eat before God with Jethro
(Exodus 18:12) had begun to perform religious functions for the people. Is it
supposed that the nation had gone without religious services for three months?
It has been remarked by many that the law of Moses appealed for acceptance to
popular and even democratic sanctions. The covenant was ratified by a plebiscite.
The tremendous evidence was offered equally to all. For, said St. Augustine, "as it
was fit that the law which was given, not to one man or a few enlightened people,
but to the whole of a populous nation, should be accompanied by awe-inspiring
signs, great marvels were wrought ... before the people" (De Civ. Dei, x. 13).
We have also to observe the contrast between the appearance of God on Sinai and
His manifestation in Jesus. And this also was strongly wrought out by an ancient
father, who represented the Virgin Mary, in the act of giving Jesus into the hands of
Simeon, as saying, "The blast of the trumpet does not now terrify those who
approach, nor a second time does the mountain, all on fire, cause terror to those
who come nigh, nor does the law punish relentlessly those who would boldly touch.
What is present here speaks of love to man; what is apparent, of the Divine
compassion." (Methodius De Sym. et Anna, vii.)
But we must remember that the Epistle to the Hebrews regards the second
manifestation as the more solemn of the two, for this very reason: that we have not
come to a burning mountain, or to mortal penalties for carnal irreverence, but to the

spiritual mountain Zion, to countless angels, to God the Judge, to the spirits of just
men made perfect, and to Jesus Christ. If they escaped not, when they refused Him
Who warned on earth, much more we, who turn away from Him Who warneth from
heaven (Hebrews 12:18-25).
There is a question, lying far behind all these, which demands attention.
It is said that legends of wonderful appearances of the gods are common to all
religions; that there is no reason for giving credit to this one and rejecting all the
rest; and, more than this, that God absolutely could not reveal Himself by sensuous
appearances, being Himself a Spirit. In what sense and to what extent God can be
said to have really revealed Himself, we shall examine hereafter. At present it is
enough to ask whether human love and hatred, joy and sorrow, homage and scorn
can manifest themselves by looks and tones, by the open palm and the clenched fist,
by laughter and tears, by a bent neck and by a curled lip. For if what is most
immaterial in our own soul can find sensuous expression, it is somewhat bold to
deny that a majesty and power beyond anything human may at least be conceived as
finding utterance, through a mountain burning to the summit and reeling to the
base, and the blast of a trumpet which the people could not hear and live.
But when it is argued that wondrous theophanies are common to all faiths, two
replies present themselves. If all the races of mankind agree in believing that there is
a God, and that He manifests Himself wonderfully, does that really prove that there
is no God, or even that He never manifested Himself wondrously? We should
certainly be derided if we insisted that such a universal belief proved the truth of the
story of Mount Sinai, and perhaps we should deserve our fate. But it is more absurd
by far to pretend that this instinct, this intuition, this universal expectation that God
would some day, somewhere, rend the veil which hides Him, does actually refute the
narrative.
We have also to ask for the production of those other narratives, sublime in their
conception and in the vast audience which they challenged, sublimely pure alike
from taint of idolatrous superstition and of moral evil, profound and far-reaching in
their practical effect upon humanity, which deserve to be so closely associated with
the giving of the Mosaic law that in their collapse it also must be destroyed, as the
fall of one tree sometimes breaks the next. But this narrative stands out so far in the
open, and lifts its head so high, that no other even touches a bough of it when
overturned.
Is it seriously meant to compare the alleged disappearance of Romulus, or the secret
interviews of uma with his Egeria, to a history like this? Surely one similar story
should be produced, before it is asserted that such stories are everywhere.
PARKER, "The Results of Obedience
Exodus 19:1-13

Israel having gone from Rephidim, came to the desert of Sinai, and there Moses,
having gone up the mountain, received from God a distinct message, "If ye will obey
my voice, ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me." This is a tabernacle without
form; this is a sanctuary not made with hands. If we can seize the meaning of this
passage we shall have in our hands one of the key-paragraphs of the whole history.
Let us try to classify the thoughts which grow as in a garden planted by the Lord
himself; a garden whose hedges are far away; for he whose mercy endureth for ever
makes no small gardens; he would, indeed, have no desert land.
Here is a Gospel originating in heaven. Moses is not the leading speaker. o desire
has been expressed by the people that any such arrangement as this should be
completed. The movement is always from above. The rains that water the earth, that
make it bring forth and bud, are clouds far above our heads and far beyond our
influence. The great thoughts all come down tipped with a light above the brightness
of the sun. If any man lack wisdom he is to ask of God. It is not a plant that is grown
in the clay; it is a flower that blossoms and blooms in the eternal paradise. Keep this
steadily in mind in the perusal of the sacred record, that no great thought ever came
from the human side. Man has had but to reply; the infinite appeals of judgment
and of grace have come out of the hidden heavens. We are, therefore, debtors to
grace. We have nothing that is worth having that is of our own invention or
manufacture. All eternal thought and all eternal feeling, being wise, pure, and
beneficent, can be traced to him who giveth all good and perfectness. This is the
foundation thought.
ow comes a Divine method which attests the heavenliness of its origin, having
about it all the mystery of the infinite and unspeakable. God says: "If ye will obey
my voice indeed, and keep my covenant." Can he not make them do so? There is no
compulsion in worship, or in morals, or in true spiritual obedience. A child can turn
his back upon God and treat the Almighty with sullenness. The tiniest knee can
stiffen itself, and decline to bow before the heavens. In its bodily relation, it can be
crushed, broken, destroyed; but representing the mind, the heart, the will, God
cannot bend that obstinate iron. So God begins by seeking consent. Man has to be a
party to this marvellous covenant If we sing, it is because our love is so burning that
we cannot keep back the music; if we obey, it is because our hearts consent to the
statute which demands obedience. Has God, then, given any detailed laws up to this
time which he means the people to accept? o. Here is the wondrousness of the
method, the laws—using that word in the plural number—have yet to come. Mark
the Divine wisdom—the wondrous reach of the Divine thought. To have come with
ten words, or a thousand lines of statute and precept would have excited argument
and discontent, criticism, and possible rebellion. ot a word was said about the
detail. God will not light the mountain until the sacrifice is prepared; the smoke,
and the fire, and the trumpet will come by-and-by. What is first wanted? The spirit,
not the Acts , of obedience. Everything turns upon that distinction. God asks
broadly and comprehensively for obedience. He must have a spirit in tune with the
music of his own purpose, and then, as to the separate melodies that must be played,
they will fall into their right place, and will assume new relations and new value,
because of the spirit of obedience which has been enkindled and sanctified in the

human heart. That is the Divine philosophy—not to come with two tables of stone,
and to invite detailed criticism and wordy controversy, but to face the creature, as it
were, and to say, "Wilt thou obey thy Creator in very deed?" The creature answers
gladly, "I will." After that you may have as many tables of stone as the occasion
requires, or as human development may call for in the ages of education yet to dawn
upon an advancing race.
Mark the wondrousness of the Divine providence, and the Divine method: First, the
spirit of obedience is created; then the separate words, or individual and singular
laws, are uttered to a prepared heart. Probably it could be proved that a great deal
of our conscious disobedience has arisen from our looking at the law we have to
obey, rather than preparing the heart to obey the whole counsel of God. You have
no right to look at the laws, until you have promised obedience, and pledged with an
oath of the heart that you will be true to the Divine proposals. Men first disqualify
themselves for judgment, and then proceed to criticism; they say, "What are the
Commandments?" That is not a permissible inquiry. We are not dealing with
plurals and details, with daily discipline and momentary demands; we are dealing
with the soul of things, with the spirit of Prayer of Manasseh , with the mood and
temper of the heart. Granted that all is right in this direction, then turn to the laws,
and you will take them up as a very little thing, understanding the sweet music of
him who came to "fulfil the law." "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light,"—a
most heavy yoke and a burden grievous beyond all other weight, if we come to it
without a prepared spirit; but having filled the heart with preparedness, and filled
the mouth with a song of adoration and a hymn of loyalty, then let the tables of
stone come to us: the stones shall have no hardness, and the law shall no longer be
arbitrary, but part of the happy music and sacred necessity which characterise the
whole order and intent of God.
Here is the explanation of the Divine preferences which have distressed so many
hearts under the cruel name of sovereignty and election. There need be no torture in
using those words. If we feel distressed by them, it is because we have come upon
them along the wrong path. They are beautiful and noble words when set in their
places according to the Divine intent. "Then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me
above all people." Is that partiality in any exclusive sense? ot at all; it is really
meant to be inclusive. God elects humanity. "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom."
In what sense? In the ordinary sense—namely, a great aggregate of subjects ruled
by one arbitrary and despotic king? In no such sense. The literal meaning Isaiah , ye
shall all be kings. ow you see the meaning of that great name, "King of kings"—
not king of an individual monarch here and there, as in Britain, or Russia, or China,
but of all believers. All obedient souls are lifted up unto kinghood. We are royal
equals if we obey Heaven"s will, and God is King of kings,—King of all. We are a
royal generation. All this language is typical. Beautiful is the historical line when
seized and wisely applied. Let us attempt such seizure and application. The
firstborn were chosen, and the firstborn were to be priests. In what sense are the
firstborn chosen? ot as relegating the afterborn to positions subordinate and
inferior; but in the sense of being their pledge and seal. God has the eldest Song of
Solomon , and therefore—that is the sacred logic—he has all the other children.

Then the laws regarding the priesthood underwent a change, and the family of
Aaron was called. We proceed from an individual, namely, the firstborn, to a family,
namely, the Aaronic stock. But why were they chosen? That all the children of
Aaron might also be priests, in the truly spiritual and eternal sense, though not in
official and formal name and status. Then the family was deposed and a tribe is
chosen—the tribe of Levi. Mark how the history accumulates and grows up into a
prophecy and an argument! First the individual, then the family, then the tribe, then
the Son of Prayer of Manasseh ,—absorbing all the past, gathering up into its true
and official meaning all priesthood, all intercession. There is one Advocate with the
Father, the Man Christ Jesus.
A new light thus begins to dawn upon the cloud. There is nothing arbitrary in the
movement of God when we can penetrate its infinite philosophy. Will God have the
firstfruits of the harvest field? He claims all such. Why will he claim the firstfruits?
That in having the firstfruits he might have all the field. He will not take the whole
wheat acreage of the world into his heavens and devour our poor loaf of bread; but
he will take the first ear of corn that we can find in all the fields, and, having taken
that, he says: "In giving me this you have given me all." He is not to be charged with
arbitrariness and severity because he takes one little ear of corn, or one poor little
sheep, and says, "This is mine." He is to be charged with a nobler grace than our
fancy had dreamed, for he takes a visit to the poor prisoner as a visit paid to
himself, bread given to the poor as bread given to the Triune God. The lifting up of
one sheaf of wheat and waving it before him is not the result of an arbitrary
sovereignty, but is sign, symbol, and type that we have given him all—that "the
earth is the Lord"s, and the fulness thereof." The Lord said to the man whom he
constituted the new head of the race: "In thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed." Think of that noble inclusion when you speak of elective sovereignty and
reprobating judgment.
This also throws light upon the vexed question of inspiration, We ask, "Why were
some inspired?" You say Moses and David, Isaiah and Daniel , and John and
Paul—they were inspired that we might all be inspired. They are the firstborn; they
are the leaders and prototypes. Because Paul was inspired, it does not follow that
the Holy Ghost is withheld from us. The Spirit is the abiding Comforter; he is the
possession of the whole redeemed and regenerated Church. He will never leave us.
Know ye not that ye are the temples of the Holy Ghost? Do not dwarf the mighty
argument by asking shallow questions about the relative degrees of inspiration. We
cannot discuss an inquiry which lies beyond the evidence at our command. Enough
it is to know that the Holy Ghost is Christ"s gift to the whole believing Church. "If
ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more
shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him!" So the whole
idea of priestism is destroyed, and the whole conception of arbitrary and despotic
sovereignty goes down, and must be branded as an unspeakable blasphemy. We are
all kings and priests unto God and the Father; we are all royal, chosen, elect,
precious. This conception alone fits the character of him who is symbolised by the
firmament, and who gives good things to the unthankful and to the evil, as well as to
the grateful and the good.

Here is God"s conception of "an holy nation." A holy nation in the Divine view is an
obedient nation, a nation living in the spirit of obedience. Let the spirit of obedience
be right, and the letter of obedience will soon become right also. First must come the
spirit, then the literal obedience. So in all things. Our Christian character in its
integrity and massiveness is destroyed by our foolish attention in the wrong place to
detailed precepts and instances. It is notably so in the matter of Christian liberality.
There are but few who understand the philosophy of joyous consecration in this
department. What is wanting? The total gift. If it were a question of detail as to
whether this or that sum should be given, or the whole appeal be shirked, then a
series of vexations would torment the conscience and the judgment. There is no such
law. We give the all, and therefore it becomes quite easy to give the little particular.
But until we have given the all we cannot give the other. It may be extorted from our
hands by a complaining conscience, but it is no acceptable oblation on the altar of
the Church. It is notably so in the matter of time. How do we come to give one day in
seven to Christ"s worship? We do Song of Solomon , when we do it at all properly,
because we have first given all the seven days. It is easy to give one in particular
when we have consecrated the whole. The one day is the wheat-sheaf taken up from
the harvest of time, and God says, receiving it, "You have given me all the days in
giving me this, the queenliest of the seven." This is the meaning of still being under
the law and not under grace, namely, that we are striving to do little things, and
separate laws, and keep particular commandments with which we have no business,
until the soul is adjusted by the meridian of the eternal sovereignty, and the whole
spirit goes out only anxious to obey.
Read the commandments in the light of this explanation, and how easy they are.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The soul is amazed—as if the
conception of having any other God could have dawned upon such glowing love.
"Honour thy father and thy mother." The spirit springs up, and says, " othing can
be easier, more delightful, or in accord with my wish." "Thou shalt not steal." The
heart Isaiah , as it were, momentarily and subtly affronted—as if such a
commandment could be needed, where the sacrifice of the body is so complete. Was
the human obedience first pledged? So was the Divine promise. The way of the Lord
is equal. Did he who asked for the obedience lay down the ground of his claim? He
did, saying, "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on
eagles" wings, and brought you unto myself." First the history, then the obedience,
then the promise, then the detailed law; and the detailed law coming after the
promise becomes an easy burden, and a yoke so light as to be like a necklet of
jewels.
LA GE, "1. Sinai and the Arrival there.
A full geographical treatise on the whole Horeb group, and especially Sinai, is given
by Ritter VIII:2, p527 sqq.; Robinson, 1, p140 sqq.; Tischendorf, Aus dem heiligen
Lande, p 61 sqq.; Strauss, p 133 sqq. See also the lexicons and commentaries. We
quote from Zeller’s Biblisches Wörterbuch, II, p. Exodus 482: “A few remarks on

the question respecting the scene of the giving of the law. There are two different
localities which have their advocates. Some find the place in Sinai proper, Jebel
Musa and the plain Esther -Sebaiyeh lying south of it; others, in the northern
terrace of Sinai, that which is now called Horeb, especially the peak of Ras Esther -
Safsafeh, with the plain er-Rahah, which stretches out before it in the north. Both
plains would be in themselves suitable for the purpose; for they are about equally
large, and furnish room for the marshalling of a large multitude. Each is so sharply
distinguished from the mountain rising up from it that the latter might in the most
literal sense be said to be touched by one in the plain;—which gives an excellent
illustration of the expression used by Moses ( Exodus 19:12): ‘whosoever toucheth
the mount,’ etc. Yet perhaps the weight of the evidence is in favor of the southern
plain, Esther -Sebaiyeh. For (1) the mountains within which the plain reposes, like a
secluded asylum, rise up from it in an amphitheatrical form and very gradually, and
therefore its slopes could have been used for the marshalling of the people if at any
time there was not quite space enough in the plain itself; whereas the mountains
bordering on the plain er-Rahah are so abrupt and steep that they could not have
been used for this purpose. (2) The plain er-Rahah has a water-shed from which the
ground to the north falls away more and more, so that to the view of those standing
there, Ras Esther -Safsafeh must have become less and less prominent, whereas the
plain Esther -Sebaiyeh rises higher and higher towards the south, and Jebel Musa
or Sinai becomes more and more majestic in appearance. (3) The view on the south
side of Sinai, where this mountain towers up perpendicularly nearly2000 feet, like
an immense altar, is decidedly more grand. (4) In Exodus 19:17 it is said that Moses
brought the people out of the camp to meet God. ow we can hardly conceive a
place better fitted for a camping-place than the plain er-Rahah with the valleys and
pastures of the environs, especially the wady Esther -Sheikh closely adjoining it. But
if this was the camping place, and at the same time the place where the people were
drawn up at the time of the giving of the law, how are we to conceive of that
bringing forth out of the camp? This expression would have no meaning. Whereas
this expression becomes full of appositeness, if we assume the plain er-Rahah on the
north of Horeb to be the camping-place, but the plain Esther -Sebaiyeh south of
Jebel Musa to be the standing-place of the people when the law was given. From
that northern plain600,000 men (for children and minors, as well as women and old
men doubtless remained behind in the camp) might well have gone in the course of a
day through the short wadies Esther -Sebaiyeh and Shoeib into the southern plain,
and back again into the camp; for the distance is only a short hour’s journey.”—On
the difficulties attending the combination of both places, see Keil, II, p94. The
expression, “Israel camped before the mount” ( Exodus 19:2), is certainly opposed
to the assumption of two camps over against two mountains. Comp. the graphic
description in Strauss. On the relation between the names Sinai and Horeb, comp.
Knobel, p188. ote: (1) that the whole region is named, after the mountain where
the law was given, sometimes Sinai, sometimes Horeb; (2) that Horeb, being reached
while the people were in Rephidim, may include Sinai; (3) that Horeb, as a separate
mountain, lies to the north of Sinai, and therefore was first reached by the Israelites.
See also Keil, p90, and Philippson, p403.—This group of lofty granite mountains
cannot primarily be designed to serve as a terror to sinners; it rather represents the
majesty and immovable fixedness of God’s moral Revelation, of His law, in a

physical form; it is therefore a positive, imposing fact, which disseminates no life,
yet on which the sinner’s false life may be dashed to destruction.—“Lepsius’
hypothesis, that Sinai or Horeb is to be looked for in Mt. Serbal, has rightly met no
approval. In opposition to it consult Dieterici, Reisebilder, II, p 53 sqq.; Ritter,
Erdkunde, XIV, p738 sqq.; and Kurtz, History, etc., III, p93” (Keil).
The Arrival at Sinai.—In the third month. Two months then have passed thus far,
of which probably the greater part belongs to the encampment in Elim and
Rephidim. The same day.—According to the Jewish tradition this means on the first
day of the third month, but grammatically it may be taken more indefinitely = “at
this time.”
2. Jehovah’s Proposal of a Covenant, and the Assent of the People. Exodus 19:3-8.
And Moses went up.—On Sinai Moses received his commission from Jehovah to
lead out the people. Therefore he must now again appear before Jehovah on Sinai,
to complete his first mission, and receive Jehovah’s further commands. It is a
characteristic feature of the following transaction concerning the covenant, that
Jehovah calls out to Moses as he goes up. A covenant is a coming together of two
parties. It has been said indeed, that ‫ית‬ ִ‫ְר‬‫בּ‬, διαθήκη, testamentum, means, not
covenant, but institution. It is true, the divine institution is the starting-point and
foundation, but the product of this institution is the covenant. This is true of all the
covenants throughout the Bible. They everywhere presuppose personal relations,
reciprocity, freedom; i.e., free self-determination.
So here the people are induced by Jehovah’s proposal to declare their voluntary
adoption of the covenant ( Exodus 19:8). After this general adoption of the covenant,
there follows a special adoption of the covenant law, Exodus 24:3. ot till after this
does the solemn covenant transaction take place, in which the people again avow
their assent, their free subjection to the law of Jehovah ( Exodus 24:7). This relation
is so far from being an absolute enslavement of the human individuality by the
majesty of the divine personality, as Hegel imagines (Vol. xi2, 46), that on the basis
of this relation the notion of a bridal and conjugal relation between Jehovah and His
people gradually comes to view. But the characteristic feature of the law Isaiah, that
it rests, in general, on a germ of ideality, of knowledge, of redemption, but, in
particular, everywhere requires an unconditional, and even blind, obedience. Hence
it may be said: In general it is doctrine (Thorah), in particular it is statute. The ideal
and empirical basis is the typical redemption: I am Jehovah, thy God, that have
brought thee out of Egypt, etc., as a fact of divine goodness and grace; and the spirit
of it is expressed in the rhythmically solemn form in which the covenant is
proclaimed in Exodus 19:3-6. The parallel phrases, “House of Jacob,” and
“Children of Israel,” present in conjunction the natural descent of the people, and
the spiritual blessings allotted to them. Ye have seen.—A certain degree of religious
experience is essential in order to be able to enter into covenant relations with
Jehovah. This experience is specifically an experience of the sway of His justice over
His enemies, and of His grace over His chosen people. Eagles’ wings.—“The eagle’s
wings are an image of the strong and affectionate care of God; for the eagle

cherishes and fosters her young very carefully; she flies under them, when she takes
them out of the nest, in order that they may not fall down upon rocks and injure
themselves or perish. Comp. Deuteronomy 32:11, and illustrations from profane
writers, in Bochart, Hieroz. II, pp762, 765 sqq.” (Keil).—And brought you unto
myself.—Knobel: to the dwelling-place on Sinai. Keil: unto my protection and care.
It probably means: to the revelation of myself in the form of law, symbolized indeed
by the sanctuary of the lawgiver, viz., Sinai. But that is a very outward conception of
Keil’s, that the pillar of cloud probably retired to mount Sinai. ow therefore, if ye
will obey my voice indeed.—According to Keil the promise precedes the
requirement, “for God’s grace always anticipates man’s action; it demands nothing
before it has given.” But here evidently the requirement precedes the promise; and
this is appropriate to the legal religion of Moses in the narrower sense. In the
patriarchal religion of Abraham the promise precedes the requirement; under
Moses the requirement precedes the promise, but not till after the fulfilment of a
former patriarchal promise, an act of redemption, had preceded the requirement.
The requirement is very definite and decided, accordant with the law.—The
promise Isaiah, first: Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me.—Keil says: ‫ָה‬‫לּ‬ֻ‫ג‬ְ‫ס‬
signifies not possession in general, but a precious possession, which one saves, lays
up (‫ַל‬‫ג‬ָ‫ס‬), hence treasure of gold and silver, 1 Chronicles 29:3, etc. (λαὸς περιούσιος,
etc. Malachi 3:17; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9). “We translate, “above all people,” not,
“out of all people,” in accordance with the following words: for all the earth is
mine.—“This reason for choosing Israel at once guards against the exclusiveness
which would regard Jehovah as merely a national God” (Keil). It may be observed
that the people are to be as distinctively the lot (κλῆρος) of Jehovah, as Jehovah
desires to be the lot of His people.—In the second place, the first promise, or the
‫ָה‬‫לּ‬ֻ‫ג‬ְ‫ס‬, is explained: Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests.—The LXX. translate,
βασίλειον ἱεράτευµα; so Peter, 1 Peter 2:9. Onkelos: “kings, priests.” Jonathan:
“crowned kings, ministering priests.” According to the Hebrew text, the kingdom as
a unit, or the realm as a body of citizens, is a nation of priests. The individuals are
priests; the unity of their commonwealth is a kingdom, whose king is Jehovah. It is
therefore a kingdom whose royal authority operates every way to liberate and
ennoble, to sanctify and dignify; the priests are related to the king; in their totality
under the king they constitute the priesthood, but only under the condition that they
offer sacrifice as priests. The . T. term, “a royal priesthood,” derived from the
LXX, merges the several priests in the higher unity of a single priesthood, whose
attribute, “royal,” expresses the truth that the king, through his royal spirit, has
incorporated himself into the midst of his people. All this, now, the Israelites are to
be, in their general attitude, first in the typical sense, which points forward to the
actual fulfilment, and prophetically includes it. Keil, therefore, is wrong in saying
that “the notion of theocracy or divine rule (referring to the preceding explanations,
II, p97), as founded by the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant, does not at all lie
in the phrase ‫ִים‬‫נ‬ֲ‫ה‬ֹ ‫כּ‬ ‫ֶת‬‫כ‬ֶ‫ל‬ְ‫מ‬ַ‫מ‬ [‘kingdom of priests’]. The theocracy established by the
formation of the covenant (chap24) is only the means by which Jehovah designs to
make His chosen people a kingdom of priests.” Whilst here the theocracy is made
not even a type, but only the medium of a type, of the ew Testament kingdom of
heaven, the people of Israel are raised high above their typical significance (p98),
much as is done in the Judaizing theories of Hofmann and others. The relations are

rather quite homogeneous: a typical people, a typical kingdom of God, a typical law,
a typical sacrifice, etc. On the other hand, Keil’s sentiment, that Israel, as a nation
of priests, has a part to act in behalf of other people, is every way accordant with the
Old Testament prophecy and with the ew Testament. ( Isaiah 42; Romans 11:15;
Romans 15:16.) And a holy nation.—The notion of the holiness of Jehovah first
appears in chap15. Here the notion of a holy people. The holiness of Jehovah is the
originating cause of the creation of a holy people. On the various explanations of the
notion of holiness, vid. Keil, p99. either the notion of newness or brilliancy, nor
that of purity or clearness satisfies the concrete import of holiness. Jehovah keeps
Himself pure in His personality, He protects His glory by His purity, His
universality by His particularity—thus is He the Holy One. And so He creates for
Himself a holy people that in a peculiar sense exist for Him, separated from the
ungodly world, as He in a peculiar sense exists for them, and keeps Himself aloof
from notions and forms of worship that conflict with true views of His personality.
The opposite of ‫ָדוֹשׁ‬‫ק‬ is ‫ֹל‬ ‫,ח‬ κοινός, profanus” (Keil). See the passages 1 Peter 1:15;
comp. Leviticus 11:44; Leviticus 19:2.—And all the people answered together. Thus
a historical, positive, conscious obligation is entered into, resting, it is true, on an
obligation inherent in the nature of things.
PETT, "Introduction
Arrival At Mount Sinai And The Appearance of Yahweh on the Mount (Exodus
19:1-25).
This section is introduced by a summary (Exodus 19:1-2) which refers back to the
details in Exodus 17-18. It was possibly the opening of a new papyrus scroll (or
tablet) in his source to bring back to mind the stage reached in the last scroll.
Compare here Exodus 6:28 to Exodus 7:1 with Exodus 6:11-13.
Verse 1-2
Arrival At Mount Sinai And The Appearance of Yahweh on the Mount (Exodus
19:1-25).
This section is introduced by a summary (Exodus 19:1-2) which refers back to the
details in Exodus 17-18. It was possibly the opening of a new papyrus scroll (or
tablet) in his source to bring back to mind the stage reached in the last scroll.
Compare here Exodus 6:28 to Exodus 7:1 with Exodus 6:11-13.
Opening Summary (Exodus 19:1-2).
Exodus 19:1-2
‘In the third moon period after the children of Israel had come out of the land of
Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. And when they were
departed from Rephidim and were come to the wilderness of Sinai, they pitched in
the wilderness, and there Israel camped before the mount.’
“In the third moon period.” Where there is the intention of being specific the day of

the month is always given, so this is a rather vague indicator of time. About seventy
to ninety days have thus passed since they began their journey. ‘The same day’, that
is, in that particular time period, with ‘yom’ signifying a particular time rather than
a day.
“They came into the wilderness of Sinai.” This refers to their entry into that part of
the country south of Canaan named ‘the wilderness of Sinai’, the area in which the
mountain itself was found.
“And when they were departed from Rephidim and were come to the wilderness of
Sinai, they pitched in the wilderness.” Here the ‘wilderness of Sinai’ refers to that
part of the Sinai peninsula which is immediately around the Mount. It was here that
they pitched their camp ‘in the wilderness’, and where the rock was to be found
from which water gushed (Exodus 17:6). This brief summary connects back to the
previous chapters, probably indicating the beginning of a new papyrus scroll.
“There Israel camped before the mount.” This is the mountain where Moses met
with God in the theophany at the burning bush (Exodus 3:1), the place where God
had chosen to reveal Himself. The place of which Yahweh had said, ‘You shall serve
God on this mountain’ (Exodus 3:12). ow Moses has come to meet with Him there
again for one of the greatest events in history. ote again the use of ‘Israel’ by itself.
This is now used synonymously with ‘the children of Israel’.
ote on the whereabouts of Sinai.
The traditional Mount Sinai is Jebel Musa (the mount of Moses), part of the granite
range of mountains in the south-central part of the peninsula of Sinai. It is one of
three large peaks in that area.
Tradition has pointed to this mountain as Mount Sinai, although the tradition is
rather late only going back sixteen hundred years. It has a plain at its base which
ties in with the Biblical description. “That such a plain should exist at all in front of
such a cliff is so remarkable a coincidence with the sacred narrative as to furnish a
strong internal argument, not merely of its identity with the scene, but of the scene
itself having been described by an eyewitness. -- the awful and lengthened approach,
as to some natural sanctuary, would have been the fittest preparation for the coming
scene. The low line of alluvial mounds at the foot of the cliff exactly answers to the
‘bounds’ which were to keep the people off from touching the mount. The plain
itself is not broken and uneven and narrowly shut in, like almost all others in the
range, but presents a long, retiring sweep, against which the people could ‘remove
and stand afar off’. The cliff, arising like a huge altar in front of the whole
congregation, and visible against the sky in lonely grandeur from end to end of the
whole plain is the very image of ‘the mountain that might be touched’, and from
which the voice of God might be heard far and wide over the plain below, widened
at that point to its utmost extent by the confluence of all the contiguous valleys.”
And its strongest support comes from the fact that some of the places that the

Exodus 19 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (6)

Similar to Exodus 19 commentary

Similar to Exodus 19 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Exodus 19 commentary