Charles Ellicott Commentary Exodus 14

Speak to the children of Israel, that they turn. —The march of the Israelites had been until now almost due south-east. They had reached the edge of the desert (Exodus 13:20), near the head of the Bitter Lakes. If this direction had been maintained, their next day’s march would have taken them out of Egypt into the “wilderness of Etham”—a desolate tract, in which there was no water, and probably scarcely any herbage.

The Bitter Lakes would have been on their right, and, as far as the Egyptians were concerned, they would have been in safety. But at this point an express command was given them to “turn.” Kaiisch, Rosenmüller, and others understand this as a command to “return,” or “retrace their steps;” but this is clearly not what was intended, since their march was to bring them to “the sea,” which they had not reached previously.

The question arises, What sea? Brugsch suggests the Mediterranean; but it is against this that the Mediterranean has not yet been mentioned in Exodus, and that, when mentioned, it is not as “the sea,” but as “the sea of the Philistines” (Exodus 23:31). “The sea” of this verse can scarcely be different from “the Red Sea” of Exodus 13:18, the only sea previously mentioned by the writer. To reach this sea it was necessary that they should deflect their course to the right, from south-east to south, so keeping within the limits of Egypt, and placing the Bitter Lakes on their left.

Pi-hahiroth ... Migdol ... Baal-zephon. —These places cannot be identified. They were Egyptian towns or villages of no importance, near the head of the Gulf of Suez, situated on its western shores.

The names closest to Pi-hahiroth in Egyptian geography are Pehir and Pehuret. Migdol would, in Egyptian, be Maktal; and there was an Egyptian town of that name near Pelusium, which, however, cannot be the one intended here. Baal-zephon was probably a Semitic settlement, which received its name from worshippers of the god Baal. Eastern Egypt contained many such settlements.

The accumulation of names indicates an accurate acquaintance with Egyptian topography, such as only an Israelite who had accompanied the expedition would likely have possessed.

Entangled in the land. —Literally, confused, perplexed. (Compare to Esther 3:15.)

Pharaoh, seeing that the Israelites had placed the Bitter Lakes on their left and were marching southward, in a direction which would soon put the Red Sea on one side of them and a desert region—the area around Jebel Atakah—on the other, thought that they must be quite ignorant of the geography and have, as it were, “lost their way.”

He observed, moreover, that the wilderness had shut them in. The desert tract between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea lay on their left and in front of them: they would soon be unable to proceed and would not know which way to turn.

The heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people. —No doubt the change began as soon as Israel began its march. The emigration left Eastern Egypt a solitude, suspended all the royal works that were in progress, threw the whole course of commerce and business into disorder. Beforehand, neither the king nor the people had understood what the loss of six hundred thousand labourers—some of them highly skilled—would be. When Israel was gone, they realised it; consequently both king and people regretted what they had done.

He made ready his chariot. — Egyptian monarchs of the Rameside period almost always led their armies out to battle, and when they did so, uniformly rode with a single attendant, who acted as charioteer, in a two-horse chariot. “Made ready” means, of course, ordered to be made ready.

Six hundred chosen chariots.—The chariot force was that on which the Egyptians chiefly relied for victory from the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty. Diodorus Siculus assigns to his Sesostris (probably Rameses II.) a force of 27,000 chariots; but this is, no doubt, an exaggeration. The largest number of chariots brought together on any one occasion that is sufficiently attested, is believed by the present writer to be 3,940, which were collected by various confederates against an Assyrian king (Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii., p. 103, Note). In 1 Samuel 13:5, 30,000 chariots are mentioned—undoubtedly a numerical error.

A force of 2,500 is said by Rameses II. to have been brought against him in his great Hittite campaign (Records of the Past, vol. ii., pp. 69, 71). Sheshonk I. (Shishak) invaded Judea with 1,200 (2 Chronicles 12:3). The “six hundred chosen chariots” of the present passage are thus quite within the limits of probability. Most likely they constituted a division of the royal guard, and were thus always at the king’s disposal.

And all the chariots of Egypt.—The word “all” must not be pressed. The writer means “all that were available—that could be readily summoned.” These could only be the chariots of Lower Egypt—those stationed at Memphis, Heliopolis, Bubastis, Pithom, Sebennytus perhaps, and Pelusium. They would probably amount to several hundreds.

Captains over every one of them.—Rather, over the whole of them. These “captains” are again mentioned in Exodus 15:4. The word in the original—a derivative from the numeral three—is supposed to have meant, primarily, “persons occupying the third rank below the king.”