Exodus 14:28

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 comments on Exodus 14:22].

And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. The Egyptians pursued.

After them, i.e. after the children of Israel. Note here, the relative is put without an antecedent before it; the antecedent being to be understood and gathered out of the following verse, or out of the course of the story. An observation which is very useful for the understanding of many scriptures. See Poole "".

Exodus 14:28 And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, [and] all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.Ver. 28. There remained not so much as one of them.] No more doth there of our subdued iniquities. Peccata non redeunt. We shall see them no more, any otherwise than these Israelites did their enemies, dead upon the shore.

(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 (Psalms 78:53; Psalms 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. There remained not so much as one of them.] Josephus says that the army of Pharaoh consisted of fifty thousand horse, and two hundred thousand foot, of whom not one remained to carry tidings of this most extraordinary catastrophe.

26, 27a. The sequel in P to v. 23. The waters are to return, as they were divided (v. 21a, c), at the signal given by Moses’ hand. 26. come again] come back; the word rendered ‘returned’ in vv. 27, 28. ‘Again’ in EVV., as in Old English generally, often means back. 27b. and the sea returned, &c.] By the cessation of the E. wind (v. 21b); or, if Exodus 15:10 is to be pressed, by a contrary wind beginning. to its wonted flow] The marg. is right: lit. to its perennial state. The word signifies properly everflowing (Amos 5:20 RVm., Psalms 74:15 RVm., Deuteronomy 21:6 RV.); but its meaning was lost by the Jews; and as it occurs in many passages in which the rend. mighty, or strong, strength, would satisfy the context, the Jews interpreted it by these words, and hence the usual rendering of it in AV. The true meaning of the word was not recovered till in the 18th cent. Arabic began to be studied and compared with Hebrew, when Albert Schultens pointed out that the root in Arabic was used of a stream, and signified to be perennial, ever-flowing. Cf. the writer’s note on Amos 5:24; and Lex. p. 450b. appeared] Heb. turned (to approach): an idiom, expression, occurring also Judges 19:26, Psalms 46:5, and, with ‘evening’ for ‘morning’, Genesis 24:63, Deuteronomy 23:11. and the Egyptians, &c.] The Heb. is more forcible: and (= as) the Egyptians were fleeing against it. shook off] The marg. is again right, ‘overthrew’ being a paraphrase: see Nehemiah 5:13, where ‘overthrow’ for ‘shake out’ would obviously be impossible. Cf. the allusion in Psalms 136:15 RVm. (the same word). (In Exodus 15:7 the Heb. word is different.) 28a. The continuation of v. 27a in P, just as v. 21c is the continuation of v. 21a.

Not so much as one of them - Escape would be impossible Exodus 14:26. Pharaoh’s destruction, independent of the distinct statement of the Psalmist, Psalms 136:15, was in fact inevitable.