Exodus 14:28

Exo 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. {Mic 7:10} Peccata non redeunt. We shall see them no more, any otherwise than these Israelites did their enemies, dead upon the shore.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

there remained not so much as one of them--It is surprising that, with such a declaration, some intelligent writers can maintain there is no evidence of the destruction of Pharaoh himself (Psa 106:11).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(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 (Psa_78:53; Psa_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. Exo_2:23; Exo_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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Exo 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 Psa 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 Ti2 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 Exod. xv. 10. & Arab. MS. apud Gregory's Notes & Observ. p. 6. (g) Shalshalet, fol. 7. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Not so much as one of them - Escape would be impossible Exo 14:26. Pharaoh’s destruction, independent of the distinct statement of the Psalmist, Psa 136:15, was in fact inevitable. The station of the king was in the vanguard: on every monument the Pharaoh is represented as the leader of the army. The death of the Pharaoh, and the entire loss of the chariotry and cavalry accounts for the undisturbed retreat of the Israelites through a district then subject to Egypt and easily accessible to their forces. If, as appears probable, Tothmosis II was the Pharaoh, the first recorded expedition into the Peninsula took place 17 years after his death; and 22 years elapsed before any measures were taken to recover the lost ascendancy of Egypt in Syria. So complete, so marvelous was the deliverance: thus the Israelites were “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” 1Co 10:2. When they left Baal-Zephon they were separated finally from the idolatry of Egypt: when they passed the Red Sea their independence of its power was sealed; their life as a nation then began, a life inseparable henceforth from belief in Yahweh and His servant Moses, only to be merged in the higher life revealed by His Son.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 "Gen 3:1".

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 thinksWe 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.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

After them - That is, after the Israelites.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

ויכסו את הרכב... לכל חיל פרעה AND COVERED THE CHARIOTS … AND ALL THE FORCES OF PHARAOH — in regard to the ל of לכל, this is the way of Scripture verses (of Biblical Hebrew) to write a redundant ל, as in (Exodus 27:3) “all (לכל) its vessels shalt thou make of copper”.. So, too, (Exodus 27:19) ‘‘all (לכל) the vessels of the dwelling in all the service thereof”; (Numbers 4:32) “and their pins and their cords and all (לכל) their vessels”. It is only an elegancy of style.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND THE WATERS RETURNED, AND COVERED THE CHARIOTS, AND THE HORSEMEN, ‘L’CHOL’ (TO ALL) THE HOST OF PHARAOH. “[The word l’chol should really have been kol without the letter lamed. However], it is the normal manner of expression of many verses to write a redundant lamed, as for example: ‘l’chol the instruments of the Tabernacle;, 27:19. Literally: ‘to all’ the instruments of the Tabernacle, but the meaning is “‘all’ the instruments.” ‘l’chol’ the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass;, Verse 3. Literally: ‘to all’ the vessels, but the meaning is “‘all’ the vessels thereof.” It is only an elegance in Scriptural style.” Thus the language of Rashi.But it is not so in this place. as being in apposition to all the host. Therefore Rashi had written that the lamed of l’chol is redundant, since the expression all the host is added by way of explanation. But Ramban interprets all the host to mean the people Pharaoh took with him besides the chariots and the horsemen. Therefore the lamed is not an idiomatic form here and is a necessary part of the verse, as is explained further in the text. Instead its meaning is as follows: “And the waters covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the in the word l’chol thus indicates the object, and is as if it were written “v’eth (and the) host of Pharaoh.” See my Hebrew commentary, p. 352. host of Pharaoh that went in after them into the sea.” The host is not identical with the chariots and the horsemen, [as is suggested by Rashi’s explanation], but rather they are his people that Pharaoh took with him, just as it is said above: all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his host., Verse 9. Here it is clear that the host is separate from the chariots and horsemen, since it says “and the host.” A similar usage of the letter lamed in connection with the term “covering” is found in these verses: As the waters cover ‘la’yam;’, but the meaning is “the sea.” And thou shalt make a covering ‘la’ohel.’, but it means “and thou shalt make ‘the tent’ a covering of….” The term “covering” also appears [in conjunction] with the word al, e.g., The fat that covereth ‘al’ the inwards., but the word al is understood as eth, a word which indicates the direct object. There are many cases like this.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.