John Calvin Commentary Exodus 8:26

John Calvin Commentary

Exodus 8:26

1509–1564
Protestant
John Calvin
John Calvin

John Calvin Commentary

Exodus 8:26

1509–1564
Protestant
SCRIPTURE

"And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to Jehovah our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?" — Exodus 8:26 (ASV)

And Moses said. The word כון,101 kon, which Moses here uses, has a wide significance; for the Hebrews say of whatever they do not approve, that it is not right (rectum.) Therefore, almost all the interpreters agree on this: that Pharaoh demanded what was by no means equitable, because he would have exposed the Israelites to be stoned by his people. If this opinion is admitted, we must read the passage connectedly: that it was not in accordance with reason for the Israelites to sacrifice in Egypt in a strange manner, because the novelty would not be tolerated.

There are two clauses in the sentence. One is that it was not right for them to offer in Egypt a sacrifice to God which was abominable to the inhabitants themselves, or to offer a profane sacrifice of the abominations of the heathen. The other is that there was a danger of the Israelites being stoned if they provoked the Egyptians by a ceremony that was detestable to them. Regarding the second clause, there is no doubt that “the abomination of the Egyptians” is taken actively for the sacrifices which they abominate. The same seems to be the meaning of the first clause, for it would be harsh to interpret the same forms of expression differently within a few words of each other. However, the name of Jehovah, placed in opposition as it is to “the abomination,” seems to require a passive meaning.

For Moses says emphatically, that it is not right to sacrifice the abomination of Egypt to Jehovah the God of Israel. If this view is adopted, “the abomination” will be the profanation of true and pure worship, with which the sacred ceremonies of the Egyptians were defiled—which is to say, that it was unlawful to mix up the worship of the true God with such sacrilege. And, in fact, Moses seems to contend with a twofold argument: first, that it was not right; and secondly, that it was not expedient.

Take this, then, as the first reason: a sacrifice polluted by the abominations of Egypt would be neither lawful nor pleasing to God. The second reason is that the Egyptians would not tolerate it, because they would consider both themselves and their gods to be grievously insulted if their accustomed mode of sacrificing were violated. This interpretation is fuller and contains fuller doctrine, if Moses, first of all, was concerned about the honor of God and did not regard the advantage of the people only. And in this sentiment—that the true God could not be duly worshipped unless separated from all idols—there is nothing forced.

But since “the abomination of the Egyptians” is taken actively in the same verse, it would be well, so that the construction may be easier, to interpret it this way in both places. Then the meaning of the first clause will be that it is not consistent to expose the worship of our God to the reproaches and sneers of the Gentiles, which would be the case if the Egyptians were to see us honoring a sacrificial ceremony that they abominate.

Indeed, I do not agree with the opinion of those who do not admit that the passage consists of two clauses but read it as one connected statement: that it was not right to do this because the Egyptians would stone the Israelites. For Moses not only considered what was best for the people but primarily what would please God, namely, that His holy name should not be profaned. I see no rational basis for limiting, as is usually done, the word “abomination” to the animals of sacrifice; therefore, I extend it to the whole act of sacrificing.102

101 C. adopts the translation of S. M., instead of that found in the instead of that found in the V., and gives his readers the short note of , and gives his readers the short note of S.M., “Non convenit, sive non est rectum.” — , “Non convenit, sive non est rectum.” — W.

102 “For the Egyptians worshipped divers beasts, as the ox, the sheep, and such like, which the Israelites offered in sacrifice; which things the Egyptians abhorred to see.” — Geneva Version, in loco.