John Calvin Commentary Exodus 6
John Calvin Commentary
Exodus 6
John Calvin Commentary
Exodus 6
"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for by a strong hand shall he let them go, and by a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land." — Exodus 6:1 (ASV)
Then the Lord said to Moses. Moses was indeed unworthy of receiving so kind and gentle a reply from God; but the Father of all goodness, out of His infinite mercy, pardoned both the sins of Moses and of the people, so that He might accomplish the deliverance which He had determined. Yet He presents nothing new, but repeats and confirms His former declaration, that Pharaoh would not obey until forcibly compelled to do so.
The expression, you shall see, is a tacit reproof of his immoderate impatience, in not waiting for the result of the promise. The reason is then added why God is unwilling that His people should be spontaneously dismissed by the tyrant, namely, because He wished the work of their liberation to be conspicuous.
We must remark the strength of the words drive them out; as if He had said that when Pharaoh had been subdued and routed in the contest, he would not only consent, but would consider it a great blessing for the people to depart as quickly as possible. The sum is that he who today refuses to let you depart will not only set you free, but will even expel you from his kingdom.
"And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah:" — Exodus 6:2 (ASV)
And God spake. God pursues His address, so that Moses may again uplift the fainting courage of the people. Moreover, He rebukes their distrust by recalling the memory of His covenant; for if this had been duly impressed upon their minds, they would have been much more firm in their expectation of deliverance.
He therefore shows that He has now advanced nothing new, since they had heard long ago from the Patriarchs that they were chosen by God as His peculiar people and had almost imbibed from their mother’s breasts the doctrine of his adoption of them. Therefore, their stupidity is the more unpardonable, and more manifest, when they thus factiously complain of Moses, as if he had himself invented what he had promised them in the name of God.
He also stings them by an implied comparison: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had eagerly embraced the promise given them and had quietly and perseveringly trusted in it, while those who boasted of their descent from that holy stock disdainfully rejected it because its fulfillment did not immediately appear.
And, to amplify their sin, he reasons from the less to the greater: since a fuller and clearer manifestation of it is presented to them than there had been to the fathers, it follows that they ought to have been more ready to believe it. Hence, it is plain that their stupidity is inexcusable, since they will not receive God when he is so familiarly presenting himself to them.
Translators do not agree regarding the epithet “Sadai.” Some derive it from the word שדד, shadad, and imagine that the final letter י, yod, is the double ד, daleth. If we agree to this, it will mean the same as “the Destroyer,” or, at any rate, it will signify the awful majesty of God.
Others are more inclined to think that the root is שד, shad, which means “a teat.” To others, it appears to be a compound word from the relative אשר, esher, or ש, and די, di, which in Hebrew means “sufficiency.” Thus he will be called “Sadai,” who abounds with all good things.
It is indeed certain that they use this word in a good as well as a bad sense; for where Isaiah threatens that God will be the avenger of sins, he calls him “Sadai” (Isaiah 13:9), so also in Job 23:16, Sadai troubleth me. In these and similar passages, the terrible power of God is unquestionably expressed; but when He promises to Abraham that He will be the God “Sadai,” He is engaging himself to be merciful and bounteous.
Here again, where He says that He appeared to the Fathers as the God “Sadai,” He is not referring so much to His might in exercising judgment as to His abundant and perfect loving-kindness. It is as though He had said that He had manifested to Abraham and the other Patriarchs how great was His effectiveness in preserving and defending His own people, and that they had known from experience how powerfully and effectually He cherishes, sustains, and aids those who are His.
But although He declares what benefits He conferred upon them, He says that He was not known to them by His name “Jehovah,” thus signifying that He now more brightly manifested the glory of His divinity to their descendants.
It would be tedious to recount the various opinions regarding the name “Jehovah.” It is certainly a foul superstition of the Jews that they dare not speak or write it, but substitute the name “Adonai.” Nor do I approve of their teaching, who say that it is ineffable because it is not written according to grammatical rule.
Without controversy, it is derived from the word היה, hayah, or הוה, havah, and therefore it is rightly said by learned commentators to be the essential name of God, whereas others are, as it were, epithets.
Since, then, nothing is more peculiar to God than eternity, He is called Jehovah because He has existence from Himself and sustains all things by His secret inspiration.
Nor do I agree with the grammarians who argue it should not be pronounced because its inflection is irregular, because its etymology, of which all confess that God is the author, is more to me than a hundred rules.72 Nor does God by “His name” in this passage mean syllables or letters, but the knowledge of His glory and majesty, which shone out more fully and more brightly in the redemption of His Church than in the commencement of the covenant.
For Abraham and the other Patriarchs were content with a smaller measure of light; hence, it follows that the fault of their descendants would be less excusable if their faith was not proportionate to the increase of their grace.
Meanwhile, Moses is awakened to activity while God is setting before him a magnificent and singular means of showing forth His glory.
72 “A.. Pfeiffer in his in his Dubia vexata, rightly observes upon this passage. The name Jehovah was not, strictly and literally, unknown to the fathers, but it was so, in respect of the perfect fulfillment of the promises implied in it; more especially, that glorious one of the deliverance out of Egypt.” —, rightly observes upon this passage. The name Jehovah was not, strictly and literally, unknown to the fathers, but it was so, in respect of the perfect fulfillment of the promises implied in it; more especially, that glorious one of the deliverance out of Egypt.” — Rosenmuller in Brightwell. “Prior to that time, the name . “Prior to that time, the name Jehovah had been often used to describe the existence, the necessity, or the unchangeableness of God; but now, to indicate His faithfulness, His truth and constancy, in keeping and fulfilling His promises.” —had been often used to describe the existence, the necessity, or the unchangeableness of God; but now, to indicate His faithfulness, His truth and constancy, in keeping and fulfilling His promises.” — Dathe in loco.. Holden, however, and others, would elude the difficulty by reading the clause interrogatively. He says, “It is impossible to read the history of Abraham, etc., without being convinced that both the name of , however, and others, would elude the difficulty by reading the clause interrogatively. He says, “It is impossible to read the history of Abraham, etc., without being convinced that both the name of Jehovah, and the attributes implied by that name, were known to them. Our , and the attributes implied by that name, were known to them. Our A..V., therefore, must be erroneous. Now every difficulty will be removed by reading it interrogatively, ‘And by my name Jehovah was I not known to them?’ which is both agreeable to the Hebrew idiom, and to the scope of the context.”., therefore, must be erroneous. Now every difficulty will be removed by reading it interrogatively, ‘And by my name Jehovah was I not known to them?’ which is both agreeable to the Hebrew idiom, and to the scope of the context.”
"And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned." — Exodus 6:4 (ASV)
And I have also established my covenant. He confirms the hope of the deliverance, which He had previously promised and which the Patriarchs had expected, by alluding to the covenant, as I have just said above. The particle גם, gam, which is repeated twice, is in the first instance causal, and in the second, illative, meaning: “Since I covenanted with your fathers, therefore I have now determined to bring you into the land of Canaan.” Alternatively, one might prefer to understand it this way: “I, the same who established the covenant with your fathers, have now also heard your groaning.”
Moreover, because the covenant is founded on free grace, God commands the redemption to be expected as much from His good pleasure as from His steadfastness.
But He again commends the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they patiently consented to be strangers and pilgrims in the land of Canaan, which by God’s covenant was their own lawful inheritance.
For it was a proof of their exemplary virtue to be wanderers all their lives, and not to have a single corner to put their foot upon, unless what was granted them by permission for the erection of their tents, being at the mercy of their neighbors; as natives always tend to despise strangers.
And by this comparison, the slowness of heart and ingratitude of their descendants is all the more condemned if they refuse to take possession of this land, which was so earnestly desired by their holy fathers, and at the sight of which alone they counted themselves blessed, even though they were only sojourners there.
"And moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant." — Exodus 6:5 (ASV)
And I have also heard the groaning. He assigns the reason why He had delayed so long to fulfill His promise: namely, because He intended for His people to be severely troubled, so that He might more openly help them in their affliction. Besides, He chose for them to be unjustly oppressed by the Egyptians, so that He might more justly rescue them from their tyrannical masters, as He had said to Abraham that He would avenge them after they had been afflicted (Genesis 15:13–14).
He therefore reminds them by this circumstance that the proper time for helping them had come. For if they had always been treated humanely, and if the laws of hospitality had been observed towards them, there would have been no cause for shaking off the yoke. But now, after the Egyptians, regardless of all justice, had broken faith with them, it was right that the groaning and cries of His cruelly afflicted people should be heard by God.
But He always expressly asserts that this depended on the covenant. This was so that the Jews might acknowledge Him to be bound to them only out of regard for His own free promise, and also so that, being persuaded that He is true to His promises, they might more surely expect deliverance. The meaning of God’s “remembering” His promise, as I have said elsewhere, is that He shows His remembrance of it by what He does.73
What follows in the next verse, Say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, is intended to remove their doubts. To human apprehension, it was as impossible to tear this weak and unwarlike people away from their cruel tyrants as it would be to rescue sheep from the jaws of wolves and keep them safe after they had been mangled and wounded by their teeth.
Therefore, God begins by declaring His incomparable power, to show that there is no difficulty for Him in performing anything whatsoever, however incredible it may seem. He therefore adds that He would redeem them with a stretched-out arm, and with great judgments, meaning, “I will give miraculous proofs of My mighty power, which shall surpass all human apprehension.”
By judgments,74 He means the manner of His dealing, which would at the same time testify to His justice. For with the Hebrews, this word means any disposition, method, order, or custom, and sometimes also measure. We say in French, facons notables ou estranges (notable or strange fashions).
73 Vide Note on chap. 2. 24, “demonstrationem effectus.” —Note on chap. 2. 24, “demonstrationem effectus.” — Lat..
74 שפטים, judicial inflictions What C. has said of the latitude of the meanings assignable to this word, is rather true of the kindred noun, סשפט. — W
"and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians." — Exodus 6:7 (ASV)
And I will take you to me. The purpose of their liberation is described here in the continuous expression of His grace. For it would have meant little for the people to be redeemed once from Egypt, unless, once redeemed, they had lived under the defense and guardianship of God.
Therefore, since He had long ago separated the holy seed of Abraham from the other nations by circumcision, He now again sets it apart (sanctificat), and promises that He will be their God. In these words, then, their peculiar election, as well as its permanence, is asserted. To be considered the people of God means the same as to be received into His favor by special privilege, and to be called by adoption to the hope of eternal salvation.
But the future tense shows that the benefit was not to be merely temporary, when God with a stretched-out arm would bring the people out of Egypt, but that this would only be the beginning of eternal protection. Moreover, we should observe the anagoge , or spiritual analogy, between us and the Israelites. God has delivered us once by the hand of His only-begotten Son from the tyranny of Satan, so that He may always pursue us with His paternal love.
He then adds the possession of the land of Canaan as an earnest or pledge, which was given to the Israelites so that God might always dwell among them, protect them with His help, and defend them with His power. I have said that this was the earnest of their adoption, because the faith of the fathers was not to be confined to earthly blessings, but to aim for a higher object. Meanwhile, by this outward sign God showed them that they were His peculiar people, for whose dwelling He chose the land in which He would be worshipped.
By saying He “would lift up His hand,”75 He means it as a confirmation, because the promise was ratified by the addition of an oath. It is indeed certain that there is enough and more than enough steadfastness in the simple word of God. However, He made this concession to human weakness and offered His sacred name as a pledge, so that they might be persuaded with fuller confidence that nothing was promised to them in vain.
To lift up the hand means to swear; an analogy taken from humans, who by this gesture testify that they are speaking in the sight of God, as if they were calling Him down as a witness from heaven. This is not applicable to God, who swears by Himself, because there is no one greater to whom He may lift His hand (Hebrews 6:13); but metaphorically, human custom is transferred to Him.
Regarding the statement that “they should know that He was the Lord,” after they had been brought out, it contains an indirect rebuke, since knowledge that comes only after the event is too late. But at the same time, He promises that He would cause them to experience openly how true He is in all His words, so that the Israelites might more steadfastly expect their redemption.
By repeating at the end that He is Jehovah, He magnifies (as He had just done before) His invincible power, which easily overcomes all obstacles. This expression also contains a testimony to His truth, as if He had said that He alone can be safely trusted, because He is both faithful in His promises and possesses infinite power.
75 Vide margin of margin of A..V..
Jump to: