(28) The chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host . . . --This translation is misleading. The Heb. runs thus: "The chariots and the horsemen (who were) all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea." It is implied that his footmen did not enter the sea.
There remained not so much as one of them.--The armour of an Egyptian warrior would make it impossible for him to escape by swimming from such a catastrophe. All who were caught by the tide would certainly be drowned. The question whether the Pharaon was drowned or no cannot be ruled by the expression here used, nor by any parallel one in the Psalms (Psalm 78:53; Psalm 106:11); it depends on more general considerations. In the first place, is it likely that if the Pharaoh had been killed there would have been no explicit mention of it? Would the point have remained one open to question? Secondly, if the Pharaoh had been killed, would the Egyptian annals have retained no trace of it? Must we not have had some account of a great king cut off in the flower of his age, after a reign of two, or at the most three, years? (Comp. Exodus 2:23; Exodus 4:19, &c.) But Menephthah, to whom all the indications point, reigned at least eight years. The latter part of his reign was inglorious, and he left the empire a prey to pretenders; but he was not suddenly cut off after reigning a year or two. Thirdly, was an Egyptian king sure to lead an attack, and place himself in the position of most peril? This has been asserted, and it is so far true, that most Egyptian kings, according to the records which they have left of themselves, so acted. But it happens that Menephthah records it of himself that on one great occasion, at any rate, he kept himself out of danger. His country was invaded by a vast army of Libyans and others from the northwest in the fifth year of his reign; the assailants menaced his chief cities, and the peril was great. Menephthah collected all his forces to meet the danger, but declined to lead them out in person, pretending that one of the Egyptian gods, Phthah, had forbidden him to quit Memphis (Brugsch, History of Egypt, vol. ii., p. 119). It is thus quite probable that he would remain with the reserve of footmen when the chariots and horsemen entered the bed of the sea.
Verse 28. - The chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh. Rather "The chariots, and the chariot men of all the host of Pharaoh." So Knobel correctly. Kalisch thinks - "We are not permitted to suppose that only the Egyptian chariots pursued the Israelites into the sea, while the infantry remained behind, so that the former alone were devoured by the waves." But even he admits that "both in this and in the following chapter, and in most other parts generally, the destruction of the chariots (chariot force?) and its warriors is chiefly alluded to, so that this particular stress would perhaps justify that conclusion." What is clear is, that no force but the chariot force is said to have entered the bed of the sea in pursuit of Israel. There remained not so much as one of them. On the proper understanding of this statement, see the introductory paragraph to the chapter.
14:21-31 The dividing the Red sea was the terror of the Canaanites, Jos 2:9; the praise and triumph of the Israelites, Ps 114:3; 106:9; 136:13. It was a type of baptism, 1Co 10:1,2. Israel's passage through it was typical of the conversion of souls, Isa 11:15; and the Egyptians being drowned in it was typical of the final ruin of all unrepenting sinners. God showed his almighty power, by opening a passage through the waters, some miles over. God can bring his people through the greatest difficulties, and force a way where he does not find it. It was an instance of his wonderful favour to his Israel. They went through the sea, they walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea. This was done, in order to encourage God's people in all ages to trust him in the greatest straits. What cannot he do who did this? What will not he do for those that fear and love him, who did this for these murmuring, unbelieving Israelites? Then followed the just and righteous wrath of God upon his and his people's enemies. The ruin of sinners is brought on by their own rage and presumption. They might have let Israel alone, and would not; now they would flee from the face of Israel, and cannot. Men will not be convinced, till it is too late, that those who meddle with God's people, meddle to their own hurt. Moses was ordered to stretch out his hand over the sea; the waters returned, and overwhelmed all the host of the Egyptians. Pharaoh and his servants, who had hardened one another in sin, now fell together, not one escaped. The Israelites saw the Egyptians dead upon the sands. The sight very much affected them. While men see God's works, and feel the benefit, they fear him and trust in him. How well were it for us, if we were always in as good a frame as sometimes! Behold the end to which a Christian may look forward. His enemies rage, and are mighty; but while he holds fast by God, he shall pass the waves in safety guarded by that very power of his Saviour, which shall come down on every spiritual foe. The enemies of his soul whom he hath seen to-day, he shall see no more for ever.
And the waters returned,.... To their place, and so in the above tradition related by Diodorus Siculus, it is said that the sea returning with a mighty force was restored to its place again; See Gill on Exodus 14:22.
and covered the chariots and the horsemen; the wall they made being much higher than a man on horseback, when they fell down, covered even those who had the advantage of horses and chariots; and much more must the infantry be covered by them, who may be meant in the next clause:
and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; the foot, that went into the sea after the chariots and horsemen, or the whole army, including the cavalry and infantry, which went into the sea after the children of Israel. Who this Pharaoh was is not agreed; according to Berosus (x) his name was Cenchres, or Chenchres, whom Acherres succeeded; according to Bishop Usher (y) it was Amenophis; but our English poet (z) calls him Busiris; though Strabo (a) says there was no king or governor of that name. Diodorus Siculus (b) indeed speaks of two so called; yet he elsewhere (c) says, not that there was any king of the name, only the sepulchre of Osiris was so called:
there remained not so much as one of them; wherefore it must be a falsehood which is related by some, that Pharaoh himself was preserved, and afterwards reigned in Nineveh (d), since not one was saved; see Psalm 106:11 and so Artapanus (e) the Heathen says, they all perished, and among these are said (f) to be Jannes and Jambres, the magicians of Egypt mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:8 but this is contradicted by those (g) who ascribe the making of the golden calf to them.
(x) Antiqu. l. 5. fol. 88. 2. & 90. 2.((y) Annal. Vet. Test. p. 19. (z) "-------whose waves o'erthrew Busiris, and his Memphian chivalry." Milton's Paradise Lost, B. 1. v. 306, 307. (a) Geograph. l. 17. p. 552. (b) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 42. (c) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 79. (d) Dibre Hayamim, fol. 13. 2.((e) Ut supra. (Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 27. p. 436.) (f) Midrash in Exodus 15.10. & Arab. MS. apud Gregory's Notes & Observ. p. 6. (g) Shalshalet, fol. 7. 1.
There remained not so much as one of them.--The armour of an Egyptian warrior would make it impossible for him to escape by swimming from such a catastrophe. All who were caught by the tide would certainly be drowned. The question whether the Pharaon was drowned or no cannot be ruled by the expression here used, nor by any parallel one in the Psalms (Psalm 78:53; Psalm 106:11); it depends on more general considerations. In the first place, is it likely that if the Pharaoh had been killed there would have been no explicit mention of it? Would the point have remained one open to question? Secondly, if the Pharaoh had been killed, would the Egyptian annals have retained no trace of it? Must we not have had some account of a great king cut off in the flower of his age, after a reign of two, or at the most three, years? (Comp. Exodus 2:23; Exodus 4:19, &c.) But Menephthah, to whom all the indications point, reigned at least eight years. The latter part of his reign was inglorious, and he left the empire a prey to pretenders; but he was not suddenly cut off after reigning a year or two. Thirdly, was an Egyptian king sure to lead an attack, and place himself in the position of most peril? This has been asserted, and it is so far true, that most Egyptian kings, according to the records which they have left of themselves, so acted. But it happens that Menephthah records it of himself that on one great occasion, at any rate, he kept himself out of danger. His country was invaded by a vast army of Libyans and others from the northwest in the fifth year of his reign; the assailants menaced his chief cities, and the peril was great. Menephthah collected all his forces to meet the danger, but declined to lead them out in person, pretending that one of the Egyptian gods, Phthah, had forbidden him to quit Memphis (Brugsch, History of Egypt, vol. ii., p. 119). It is thus quite probable that he would remain with the reserve of footmen when the chariots and horsemen entered the bed of the sea.
and covered the chariots and the horsemen; the wall they made being much higher than a man on horseback, when they fell down, covered even those who had the advantage of horses and chariots; and much more must the infantry be covered by them, who may be meant in the next clause:
and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; the foot, that went into the sea after the chariots and horsemen, or the whole army, including the cavalry and infantry, which went into the sea after the children of Israel. Who this Pharaoh was is not agreed; according to Berosus (x) his name was Cenchres, or Chenchres, whom Acherres succeeded; according to Bishop Usher (y) it was Amenophis; but our English poet (z) calls him Busiris; though Strabo (a) says there was no king or governor of that name. Diodorus Siculus (b) indeed speaks of two so called; yet he elsewhere (c) says, not that there was any king of the name, only the sepulchre of Osiris was so called:
there remained not so much as one of them; wherefore it must be a falsehood which is related by some, that Pharaoh himself was preserved, and afterwards reigned in Nineveh (d), since not one was saved; see Psalm 106:11 and so Artapanus (e) the Heathen says, they all perished, and among these are said (f) to be Jannes and Jambres, the magicians of Egypt mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:8 but this is contradicted by those (g) who ascribe the making of the golden calf to them.
(x) Antiqu. l. 5. fol. 88. 2. & 90. 2.((y) Annal. Vet. Test. p. 19. (z) "-------whose waves o'erthrew Busiris, and his Memphian chivalry." Milton's Paradise Lost, B. 1. v. 306, 307. (a) Geograph. l. 17. p. 552. (b) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 42. (c) Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 79. (d) Dibre Hayamim, fol. 13. 2.((e) Ut supra. (Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 27. p. 436.) (f) Midrash in Exodus 15.10. & Arab. MS. apud Gregory's Notes & Observ. p. 6. (g) Shalshalet, fol. 7. 1.