Exodus Chapter 14 verse 28 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 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.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(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.