of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus be adduced as a proof that no such murderous command can ever have been issued; for nothing more can be inferred from this, than that the command was neither fully executed nor long regarded, as the Egyptians were not all so hostile to the Israelites as to be very zealous in carrying it out, and the Israelites would certainly neglect no means of preventing its execution. Even Pharaoh's obstinate refusal to let the people go, though it certainly is inconsistent with the intention to destroy them, cannot shake the truth of the narrative, but may be accounted for on psychological grounds, from the very nature of pride and tyranny which often act in the most reckless manner without at all regarding the consequences, or on historical grounds, from the supposition not only that the king who refused the permission to depart was a different man from the one who issued the murderous edicts (cf. Exo 2:23), but that when the oppression had continued for some time the Egyptian government generally discovered the advantage they derived from the slave labour of the Israelites, and hoped through a continuance of that oppression so to crush and break their spirits, as to remove all ground for fearing either rebellion, or alliance with their foes.
Chap. 2
verses 1-2
At the time when all the Hebrew boys were ordered to be thrown into the Nile, “there went (הלך contributes to the pictorial character of the account, and serves to bring out its importance, just as in Gen 35:22; Deu 31:1) a man of the house of Levi - according to Exo 6:20 and Num 26:59, it was Amram, of the Levitical family of Kohath - and married a daughter (i.e., a descendant) of Levi,” named Jochebed, who bore him a son, viz., Moses. From Exo 6:20 we learn that Moses was not the first child of this marriage, but his
