Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction/2

Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators struggle to understand how Moshe can speak in Hashem's name when no prior Divine command is to be found in the text.  Their varying approaches reflect opposing understandings of both the degree of prophetic autonomy and the extent to which the text records all details of Hashem's commands.

According to Ramban, the Torah does not present a complete log of all of Hashem's utterances, and thus the textual omission of a particular Divine directive does not imply that it was not transmitted to Moshe.  This allows Ramban to maintain that whenever Moshe invokes Hashem's name, he is in fact speaking at God's behest, and all details of these commands had previously been communicated by Hashem.

The diametrically opposite approach is advanced by Chizkuni, who assumes that the absence of a textual record of Hashem's instructions suggests that in such cases there was no Divine command.  This leads him to posit that Moshe indeed had the authority to speak in the name of Hashem, even without being commanded to do so.

A compromise position on both issues is adopted by Rashi.  He asserts that in these cases, careful scrutiny of the Biblical text will uncover traces of an earlier Divine command, even if not a fully fleshed out one.  Accordingly, Moshe, while not fully innovating, does possess the Divine inspiration to interpret and elaborate on these allusions and is not simply taking dictation from Hashem.

All Divinely Commanded

Everything Moshe conveyed in Hashem's name was Divinely commanded, and despite Hashem's instructions not being explicitly mentioned, it is implied from context that they were communicated to Moshe.

Sources:Lekach TovShemot 11:1Shemot 32:27About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 10:2Shemot 11:1About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 11:1About R. Avraham Maimonides, RambanShemot 10:2Shemot 11:1Shemot 14:15Shemot 16:4Shemot 32:27Vayikra 9:2Vayikra 10:3Bemidbar 16:5Bemidbar 17:6About R. Moshe b. Nachman, AbarbanelShemot 9:29, 10:1, 4Shemot 16:23Shemot 32:27Vayikra 9:5-6Vayikra 10:3Bemidbar 16:3Devarim 34:11About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 11:1-2Shemot 16:4, 22Vayikra 10:3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, NetzivShemot 16:16Shemot 16:23Shemot 16:34Shemot 32:27Vayikra 10:3Bemidbar 16:4, 17About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, R. David Zvi HoffmannShemot 10:1-2Shemot 11:1-3Shemot 16:12, 15, 23Vayikra 10:3About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

Prophetic autonomy – According to this approach, whenever a prophet speaks in Hashem's name, he is simply following orders.

• No autonomy – As such, some proponents of this position might assert that a prophet has no independence to speak on his own at all.  In all cases he must do only as explicitly commanded.  Dunash. b. Labrat¹ goes as far as to say that even the words used by the prophet are all chosen by Hashem.
• Some autonomy – However, many of these commentators² disagree and believe that, when necessary, a prophet can act/speak at their own initiative, as long as this is not done in the name of Hashem.³  See Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction for elaboration.

"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו" – This approach understands this verse to literally mean that a prophet is prohibited from speaking in the name of Hashem unless commanded. Thus, all verses which assume that a prophet did so (and was not punished) must be reinterpreted.

"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ"

• Listening to prayers – This position could suggest that this verse has nothing to do with the autonomous speech of a prophet and instead speaks of Hashem fulfilling the prayers and hopes of His prophets. 
• Fulfilling Hashem's prophecies – Alternatively, it refers to Hashem keeping His own promises as expressed by His messengers. Hashem is contrasting the speech of "imposters" ("בַּדִּים") and "diviners" ("קֹסְמִים") whose words are not trustworthy, with that of His prophets, who are reliable precisely because they speak the word of God.⁴

Biblical cases – These sources explain away most of the Biblical cases by asserting that though Hashem's words do not appear in the text, they can be assumed.  Often, part of Hashem's command is recorded and just the details are missing from the text:

• Plague of Locusts – R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ramban, and R. D"Z Hoffmann assert that when Hashem said to Moshe "go to Paroh" in Shemot 10:1, He also included the specifics of the coming plague.  Ramban points out that if Hashem did not say elaborate, what was the purpose of telling Moshe to go?
• Plague of the Firstborn – According to these sources, Hashem's words in Shemot 11:1-3, "...עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד" are simply an abridgement and really included all the details related by Moshe in the subsequent verses.  There is a divergence of opinion regarding the timing of Hashem's communication:
• Most of these commentators assume that the command is found in its chronological place and that Moshe received the prophecy in Paroh's palace as he was speaking to him.⁵
• R. Avraham b. HaRambam and R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, suggest that the verses are not in chronological order and Hashem appeared to Moshe before his conversation with Paroh.⁶
• Manna – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that Moshe's statement in Shemot 16:16 regarding gathering an omer worth of manna must have been part of Hashem's directive when He said "וְלָקְטוּ דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ" in 16:4.  Similarly the words "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י שַׁבָּתוֹן שַׁבַּת קֹדֶשׁ" in 16:23⁷ refer to Hashem's directive of 16:5 which spoke of collecting a double portion on the sixth day.
• Killing those who worshiped the Calf – According to the Lekach Tov, Moshe received this command on the spot as he gathered the Levites.  Ramban, in contrast, asserts that Hashem must have instructed him to do this while he was still on Mt. Sinai, as part of the conversation recorded in 32:7-14.⁸

• "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ" – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that this too is simply never mentioned in the text.  Ramban,⁹ in contrast, maintains that Moshe did not mean to say that Hashem actively said these words elsewhere, but more simply told Aharon that this was Hashem's will. The word "דִּבֶּר" means thought or decreed rather than said.‎¹⁰ 
• Laws of Oaths – Ramban asserts that the summary verse of the chapter, "אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י"י" teaches that all had been commanded by Hashem. RashbamBemidbar 30:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir explains that the unusual order is due to the fact that Moshe has just been told to tell the people to bring their festival offerings along with their votive offerings (נדרים).  This led Moshe to immediately issue a directive regarding the general laws of vows.

Why is Hashem's command not explicitly stated? These commentators assert that it is the way of the text to be brief in one place and lengthy in another.  Instead of tediously repeating both a command and its fulfillment, sometimes the Torah brings one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both.¹¹  Most of the commentators do not explain the choice in any given story.  R. D"Z Hoffmann, though, suggests that it might relate to literary factors:

• Plague of Locusts – R. D"Z Hoffmann explains that since the Torah wanted to highlight Paroh's officers' reaction to the news, it needed to include Moshe's relaying of the prophecy rather than Hashem's original command.¹²
• Plague of the Firstborn – According to Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann, Moshe's words in 10:4 are a direct continuation of the conversation with Paroh begun in 9:24, and so it is natural for the text to focus on Moshe's words rather than Hashem's command.  In fact, they claim that the partial record of Hashem's command in 10:1-3 ("עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד") is parenthetical,¹³ and appears only so the reader can understand how Moshe was able to tell Paroh, "לֹא אֹסִף עוֹד רְאוֹת פָּנֶיךָ"‎ and speak with such confidence in the continuation.
• Sin of the Golden Calf – According to the Lekach Tov who maintains that the command was issued immediately before Moshe relayed it, the text might have omitted the directive so as not break up Moshe's speech and thereby lessen its dramatic impact.¹⁴

Moshe's Elaboration on Divine Command

When Moshe speaks in Hashem's name, he does so using his own intuition and interpretation of Hashem's will based on Hashem's general and incomplete comments, or by applying Hashem's commands from one situation to another.  Any words spoken by Hashem are actually transmitted in the text, but are comprised of hints and allusions rather than direct commands.

Sources:Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot12About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, Shemot Rabbah42:5About Shemot Rabbah, RashiShemot 32:27Vayikra 10:3Shofetim 4:6About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 11:1Shemot Long Commentary 16:4Shemot Short Commentary 11:4About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. OvadiahShemot 10:2About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Yalkut ShimoniShofetim 43About Yalkut Shimoni, RalbagShemot Beur HaParashah 11:1, 9-10About R. Levi b. Gershom

Prophetic autonomy – According to this approach, since Hashem sometimes provides only hints to His will, a prophet has a certain amount of leeway in the interpretation, application, and expression of Hashem's words, but is still considerably limited.¹⁵

"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו" – This approach might limit the prohibition by understanding the word "צִוִּיתִיו" to include any speech of Hashem, even if not directed personally at the prophet (צִוִּיתִיו = צויתי).   Thus, a prophet is permitted to attribute a statement to Hashem even if Hashem only implied it or said it in another context.

"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ" – This approach could explain that the verse refers only to Hashem answering the prayers of his prophets, not their prophetic announcements in His name.¹⁶

Biblical cases – In contrast to the first position above, these commentators are not satisfied with suggesting that Hashem's command is simply assumed.  They rather attempt to find a textual basis for such a command on each of the occasions Moshe speaks in Hashem's name:¹⁷

• Plague of Locusts – R. Ovadiah asserts that when Hashem said that the plague's purpose was that in the future people would speak of Hashem's wonders ("לְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאׇזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ"), Moshe understood on his own that God was speaking of locusts.  Since it is a repeatedly occurring natural phenomenon, it lends people to compare their natural experience with the extreme supernatural example wrought by Hashem. He points out that the prophet Yoel, too, claims that the locust plague of his time will be spoken about from one generation to the next.¹⁸
• Plague of the Firstborn – Ibn Ezra and Ralbag assert that the phrase "וַיֹּאמֶר י"י אֶל מֹשֶׁה עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד" is in the past perfect and refers back to Hashem's conversation with Moshe en route from Midyan in Chapter 4.  Moshe knew the identity of the last plague, not from a present revelation, but from Hashem's statement there that if Paroh refused to set the nation free, his firstborn would be killed.  Though Hashem neither mentioned that this would be a nation-wide plague, nor set a date for it, Moshe understood His intent and on his own recognized that the time had now come.¹⁹
• Shabbat (Shemot 16:23) – According to the Mekhilta and Yalkut Shimoni, Moshe was able to tell the nation (in Hashem's name) about the sanctity of Shabbat, because Hashem had mentioned collecting double on Friday, allowing Moshe to intuit the rest.
• Killing those who worshiped the Calf – According to Rashi,²⁰ Moshe simply applied the law of "זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יׇחֳרָם" to these idolators.²¹
• "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ" – Mekhilta, Rashi, and Yalkut Shimoni claim that Moshe is referring to Hashem's words in Shemot 29:43, "וְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי"‎.

Why is Hashem's command not explicitly stated? These sources could suggest that explicit commands were simply not necessary in these cases, as Moshe on his own could figure out Hashem's will²² and Hashem was comfortable allowing Moshe to work out the details on his own. Moreover, in those cases where Moshe is applying a previously stated law, no speech is expected as that is the entire purpose of a legal system.

Can a prophet err? This approach would seem to leave room for human error in interpreting and applying Hashem's words.

Motivation for this position – It seems that many of these sources are motivated less by the theological issues related to the degree of prophetic autonomy granted to a prophet and more by the textual need to find an explicit source for any place where a verse alludes to a previous statement.

Moshe's Own Initiative

At times, Moshe speaks on his own initiative, but he nonetheless attributes his words to Hashem's command.

Sources:Pesikta DeRav Kahana7:3About Pesikta DeRav Kahana,Tanchuma (Buber)Bo 17About the Tanchuma, Seder EliyahuRabbah 4About Seder Eliyahu, ChizkuniShemot 10:3Shemot 11:4Bemidbar 30:2About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, CassutoShemot 32:27About Prof. Umberto Cassuto

Prophetic autonomy – According to these sources, a prophet has a significant degree of autonomy and in certain instances is allowed to determine his own course of action even without Hashem's prior approval.  Moreover, he may even invoke Hashem's name to lend authority to his speech.

"הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר יָזִיד לְדַבֵּר דָּבָר בִּשְׁמִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו"

• This position might reinterpret this prohibition to mean that a prophet cannot say something in Hashem's name that contradicts His will or commandments.²³  As long as Hashem agrees with the prophet's speech, however, there is no problem with the fact that Hashem had not actually said the statement attributed to Him.²⁴
• Alternatively, the approach might limit the prohibition to refer only to prophets whose authenticity has not yet been established.  Such prophets must be careful to speak only as commanded, but a recognized true prophet (such as Moshe) has more latitude and independence.

"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ" – These sources point to this verse as evidence that Hashem upholds the words of his prophets even when they speak without His permission.

Biblical cases

• Plague of Locusts – Chizkuni asserts that Moshe declared this plague by himself.  He does not explain why Moshe chose locusts, or why it was specifically at this juncture that Moshe decided to act on his own rather than waiting for Hashem.  It is possible that Moshe attributed the command to Hashem since it was important that Paroh view the Plagues as emanating from Hashem and thereby appreciate His power.²⁵
• Plague of the Firstborn
• According to Pesikta DeRav Kahana and Tanchuma, only Moshe's opening words, "כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם" were said on Moshe's own initiative,²⁶ while the announcement of the plague itself was upon the command of Hashem.²⁷  From the Midrash it even sounds as if this was perhaps a mistake on the part of Moshe. Hashem had said he was going to strike at night and Moshe transmitted "midnight".  To ensure that Moshe did not appear as a liar, Hashem was forced to strike then.
• Chizkuni is ambiguous, but he leaves open the more radical possibility that Moshe selected the plague in its entirety on his own.²⁸ This leads one to wonder if Moshe correctly intuited Hashem's original plan, or if Hashem had something totally different in mind,²⁹ but was "forced" into following Moshe.
• Killing those who worshiped the Calf – According to Seder Eliyahu,³⁰ Moshe made his own calculation that it was better that the 3,000 worshipers be killed than have the entire nation be wiped out by Hashem.  Fearing that the people would be loathe to kill their brothers upon his orders alone, he further decided to present the decision as a command of Hashem.

Can a prophet err? If a  prophet can act on his own, it would seem that he can also err.  This approach might suggest that it is only prophets who are very in tune with Hashem's will who may innovate; others are prohibited from doing so lest they deviate form Hashem's plans.

Speaking in Hashem's name – It is possible that Moshe had already proven himself as an able messenger of Hashem, whose will conformed with that of Hashem.  Being confident that Hashem would always be "מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ", Moshe could say with certainty that his speech was in effect "the word of Hashem."

¹ Ibn Ezra refers to him as R. Adonim.

² See RambanBemidbar 16:5Bemidbar 17:6About R. Moshe b. Nachman and AbarbanelBemidbar 16:3About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel on the story of Korach, AbarbanelShemot 8:8About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 8:8About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, and R. D"Z HoffmanShemot 8:8About R. David Zvi Hoffmann on Moshe's removing of the plagues of frogs, and AbarbanelShemot 16:9Shemot 16Devarim 34:11Melakhim I 17:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel regarding Moshe's announcing the coming of meat and the miracles wrought by other prophets such as Eliyahu and Elisha.

³ Their claim that Hashem's command must be assumed is not motivated by the idea that a prophet's autonomy is limited and that Moshe could never have acted on his own initiative, but by the idea that a prophet would not dare attribute his own decisions to Hashem.

⁴ According to Ramban, Abarbanel, Shadal and R. D"Z Hoffmann the verse could also refer to fulfilling miracles announced by a prophet in their own name.

⁵ See Shemot Rabbah which asserts that since Moshe had told Paroh that he was not going to approach him again (לֹא אֹסִף עוֹד רְאוֹת פָּנֶיךָ), and Hashem had not yet relayed news of the final plague, Hashem instantly appeared to Moshe so that he could deliver this last message to Paroh before leaving the palace for the final time.

⁶ As such, Moshe's speech in 10:4-8 continues directly from his words in 10:29.  This reading explains how Moshe was able to tell Paroh that he was not going to visit the palace again; since Hashem had previously told him about the final plague, Moshe knew that there would be no reason for further negotiations.  Another advantage of this approach is that it need not posit that Moshe prophesied in the midst of a conversation in the middle of the palace.

⁷ The Netziv, in contrast, understands the phrase "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י" to mean that it was Hashem's will (not command) that everyone find two omer's worth on Friday. Cf. Ramban on Vayikra 10:3 who explains the same phrase there the same way.

⁸ In other words, the record of Hashem's conversation with Moshe in 32:7-14 is missing some details, including this directive.  Ramban posits that after Hashem agreed not to totally destroy the nation, He told Moshe that he still must at least kill the active worshipers.

⁹ Shadal and Netziv follow his lead.

¹⁰ As evidence for such usage, he points to Kohelet 1:16, Bereshit 24:51, and Melakhim I 16:34.  R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel, instead assume that Moshe is alluding to words of Hashem mentioned elsewhere in the text. R"Y Bekhor Shor points to Vayikra 21 [Cf. RashbamVayikra 10:3About R. Shemuel b. Meir there who explains that since there is no chronology in Torah (אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה), Moshe can refer to a command only mentioned later] while Abarbanel points to  Shemot 19.  It is possible that in this case they looked for an explicit verse rather than just assuming that Hashem said this, because Moshe speaks not about what Hashem is about to do, but about what Hashem previously said He would do in the future.  They might not be concerned with Moshe quoting Hashem indirectly since here Moshe is speaking privately to Aharon and not as a public figure.

¹¹ See RambanShemot 10:2Shemot 11:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman for other examples.  See also his comments to Bereshit 31:7, 42:21, 44:7, Shemot 4:17, Bemidbar 20:14, 21:13, Devarim 1:45, and 3:23 where he consistently uses this principle.

¹² One can similarly posit that in the story of the gathering of the manna, it is the interaction between Moshe and the people (and not between Hashem and Moshe) that the text wants to focus upon.

¹³ See above that the other sources disagree and assert that the prophecy itself occured where it is written and would have to find a different explanation for why the text focuses on Moshe's delivery and not Hashem's command.

¹⁴ According to Ramban, in contrast, the command was given during the conversation on the mountain.  It is possible that there the text wanted to highlight Moshe's defense of the nation which convinced Hashem not to destroy the people, and if the text simultaneously included Hashem's command to kill the active worshipers, it would seem to lessen the impact of Moshe's prayer.

¹⁵ Ibn Ezra and Ralbag believe that prophets also have the authority to call on Hashem to perform miracles that He did not promise beforehand, but in these cases the prophets may not say, "כה אמר ה'" or the like.  For details see Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction.

¹⁶ Ralbag claims that it refers to Hashem consenting to perform wonders for a prophet who declared them on his own, without invoking Hashem's name.

¹⁷ Rashi is consistent in looking for such verses anywhere the text alludes back to speech that was not recorded previously, even not in the context of prophetic utterances in the name of Hashem.   See, for example, his comments on Bereshit 32:13, Shemot 14:12, Bemidbat 11:12, Devarim 6:19, Devarim 11:25, Devraim 15:6 and many more.  Cf. Mekhilta and Yalkut Shimoni who also bring an extensive list.

¹⁸ Cf. Shemot Rabbah13:4About Shemot Rabbah who also suggests that the words "וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ" recall Yoel's similar language "עָלֶיהָ לִבְנֵיכֶם סַפֵּרוּ" and thus hint that Hashem was referring to locusts.  Shemot Rabbah, however, claims that Hashem actually revealed the plague's identity to Moshe (גִּלָּה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה מַה מַּכָּה יָבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן), but Moshe only included the allusion when writing the Torah.

¹⁹ Once Paroh told Moshe that he no longer wanted to see his face, Moshe recognized that the end was near.  Cf. MalbimShemot 11:1About R. Meir Leibush Weiser who claims that 11:1-3 are in their chronological place and, in the palace, Hashem hinted to Moshe that the time had come for the last plague which he already heard about in Midyan.  Cassuto, in contrast, suggests that the verses are a parenthetical aside telling the reader Moshe's inner thoughts.  After Paroh's angry retort at the end of Chapter 10, Moshe remembered Hashem's previous discussion about killing firstborns, and realized that the last plague was at hand.

²⁰ See also Yalkut Shimoni.

²¹ Rashi is consistent in explaining that this took place according to due process and only where there were witnesses and warning was someone killed. 
He explains Devorah's command to Barak, "הֲלֹא צִוָּה י"י אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵךְ וּמָשַׁכְתָּ בְּהַר תָּבוֹר" similarly, suggesting that she learned that they were meant to fight Sisera and the Cannanites from the law regarding destroying the 7 nations in Devarim 20:17,  "כִּי הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִימֵם".
R. Meir in Shemot Rabbah suggests instead that Hashem's words "לֶךְ רֵד" hinted to the fact that the nation deserved to be disciplined (מַרְדּוּת הֵם צְרִיכִים). According to him, it would seem that Moshe might have on his own picked the form that discipline would take.

²² And, presumably had he not, Hashem would have clarified.

²³ "אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִיו" does not refer to saying that which was not said to the prophet, but to saying that which was not commanded or desired by Hashem in general.

²⁴ Thus, the test of a false prophet is whether or not his words come true.

²⁵ This, however, should have been a reason for Moshe not to intervene at all and simply allow Hashem to take total control.

²⁶ From the Midrash it sounds as if this was perhaps even a mistake on the part of Moshe.  Hashem had said he was going to strike at night and Moshe transmitted "midnight".

²⁷ As evidence they point to Hashem's words in Shemot 12:12, "וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה וְהִכֵּיתִי כׇל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה".  This verse, however, only appears after Moshe spoke to Paroh so he should not have been aware of it.  One could instead suggest that Moshe knew of the plague from Hashem's prior conversation with him in Chapter 4, and when Hashem said "עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד אָבִיא" he realized that Hashem meant the Plague of the Firstborn.

²⁸ This easily explains why there is no overlap between Hashem's command in 1-3 and Moshe's subsequent words; Moshe was not broadcasting Hashem's message, but making his own.

²⁹ Hashem's words in Shemot 4:23 suggest that killing Paroh's firstborn was always part of Hashem's plan, but they say nothing about the rest of the Egyptian firstborns.

³⁰ See Cassuto similarly.