Exodus 4
THE RELUCTANCE OF MOSES PERSISTS
vs. 1-17 – “And Moses answered and said,
But, behold, they will not believe
me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they
will say, The LORD hath not appeared
unto thee.
There had been no appearance of Jehovah to anyone for above
four
hundred
years. And the Israelites, who had not seen Moses for forty years, would
not
know whether he was a veracious person or not.
And the LORD said unto him,
What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the
ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled
from before it. And the LORD said unto
Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take
it by the tail”. A
snake-charmer will usually take up his serpents by the neck, so that
they
may not be able to bite him. Moses was bidden to show his trust in God by
taking
up his serpent by the tail. His courage, as well as his faith, is shown in his
ready
obedience. “And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod
in his hand: That they may believe that
the LORD God of their fathers, the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob, hath appeared unto
thee.
And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy
bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom:
and when he took it out, behold,
his hand was leprous as snow”. Leprous as snow. The Greek
name for the worst
form of
leprosy, leu>kh, (lyoo-kos’) was based on this fact of whiteness. The
loathsome
disease is thus described by Kalisch: — “It begins with
mealy crusts and
scurfy
scabs, originally not larger than a pin’s point, a
little depressed in the skin
(Leviticus
13:3,30), and covered with white hairs (ib. 3, 20).
These spots rapidly
spread (ib. 8), and
produce wild [proud?] flesh (ib. 10, 14).
The leprous symptoms
appear most frequently on the hairy parts of the body, and also on
members which
have been ulcerously affected. When the leprosy has gained
ground, the whole
skin
appears glossy white at the forehead, nose, etc., tuberated,
thickened,
dry like
leather, but smooth; sometimes it bursts, and ulcers become visible.
The nails
of the hands and feet fall; the eyelids bend backwards; the hair
covers
itself with a fetid rind, or goes off entirely (ib. 42). All external
senses
are weakened:
the eyes lose their brightness, become very sensitive, and are
continually
blearing; from the nostrils runs a fluid phlegm.” Leprosy
in a developed
form
was regarded as absolutely incurable. (Celsus, ‘De Re
Medica,’ 5:7-8.) Its
instantaneous production
and removal were contrary to all experience, and in
themselves thoroughly
astonishing. Further, while the first miracle was simply a
sign
of supernatural power — a credential, the second was a warning
and a lesson.
What might not he do to smite or to save on whom
God had bestowed such power
over
the human organism? Each man would naturally fear to resist or disobey one so
dangerously
gifted. “And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he
put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked
it out of his bosom, and, behold,
it was turned again as his other flesh. And it shall come to pass, if they will not
believe thee, neither hearken to the voice
of the first sign, that they will believe
the voice of the latter sign. And it shall come to pass, if they will not
believe
also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that
thou shalt take of the
water of the river, and pour it upon the
dry land: and the water which thou
takest out of the river shall become blood
upon the dry land.” The
river is of
course “the
those who
were religious, well-disposed, and fair-minded; the second, acting upon
their
fears, would move all but the desperately wicked, who despised Jehovah and
put their
trust in the gods of the Egyptians (Joshua 24:14; Ezekiel 20:7-8; 23. 3,8).
The third
sign was for these last, who would regard the
and would
see in the conversion of
that the God who had commissioned Moses was
greater than any Egyptian one.
“And Moses said unto the LORD, O my LORD, Moses
feels that he is trying the
patience
of God to the uttermost; but yet he must make one more effort to escape his
mission. “I am
not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken
unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech,
and of a slow tongue”. According
to a
Jewish
tradition, Moses had a difficulty in pronouncing the labials b, v, m, ph, p.
“And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made
man’s mouth? or who maketh
the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the
blind? have not I the LORD? Now
therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou
shalt say”.
God could
and would have cured the defect in Moses’ speech, whatever it was; could
and would
have added eloquence to his other gifts, if he had even at this point yielded
himself up
unreservedly to His guidance and heartily accepted His mission. Nothing
is too hard for the Lord. He gives all powers — sight,
and hearing, and speech
included —
to whom He will. He would have been “with Moses’ mouth,” removing
all
hesitation or indistinctness, and have “taught him what to say” —
supplied the
thought and
the language by which to
express it — if Moses would have let Him. But
the reply
in v.13 shut up the Divine bounty, prevented its
outpour, and left Moses the
ineffective
speaker which he was content to be. The words, “And he said, O my
LORD, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him
whom thou wilt send” are curt
and
ungracious; much curter in the original than in our version. They contain a
grudging
acquiescence. But for the deprecatory particle with which they commence –
(the
same as in v. 10), they would be almost rude. And we see the result in the
next
verse. “And
the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses” - The
expression
used is a strong one, but does not perhaps here mean more than that God
was
displeased. At least, He did not punish the offender in any severer way than by
the
withholding of a gift that He was ready to bestow, and the partition between
two
of a
position and a dignity which Moses might have had all to himself. Perhaps
diffidence
and self-distrust, even when out of place, are not altogether abhorrent to
One whose
creatures are continually offending Him by presumption and arrogance.
“and He said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy
brother? I know that he can speak well.
And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet
thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be
glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words
in his mouth:”
Moses’
position was still the more honorable one, though Aaron’s might seem the
higher
to the people - “and I will be with thy
mouth, and with his mouth, and
will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the
people:
and he shall be, even he shall be to thee
instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to
him instead of God. And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand,
wherewith
thou shalt do signs”. The reluctance of Moses to undertake the part of
leader,
indicated
by his first reply at his first calling, “Who
am I that I should go?”
(ch.3:11),
was not yet overcome. God had promised that he would
succeed;
but he did
not see how he could succeed, either with the people or with
Pharaoh. It
was not enough for him that God had declared, “They (the people)
shall hearken unto thy voice” (ch. 3:18); he does not, cannot believe this, and
replies: “Behold, they will not believe, neither hearken
unto my voice” (v. 1).
This was
plain want of faith; but not unnatural, and not, in God’s sight, inexcusable.
God
therefore condescended to the human
weakness of His servant, and proceeded
to show him how he intended that he
should persuade the people of his mission.
He should
persuade them by producing the credentials of miracles (vs. 2-9). But the
aggard
heart finds yet a further objection. Moses feels
that he labors under a
personal
defect, which (he thinks) is an absolute
disqualification. He is “slow of
speech and of a slow tongue” (v. 10),
has always been wanting in
eloquence, and
does not
find himself any the more eloquent
since God has been speaking with him.
In vain
does Jehovah promise to “be with his mouth” (v. 12); Moses’ last word
indicates
all the old feeling of
self-distrust. “Send, I
pray thee, by the hand of him
whom thou wilt send” (v. 13).
Then at last the anger of the Lord is kindled against
Moses, and
God inflicts on him a sort of punishment — degrades him; as it were —
deposes him
from the position of sole leader, and associates Aaron with him in such
sort that
Aaron must have appeared, both to the
Israelites and to the Pharaoh, as the
chief
leader rather than Moses. (See
Exodus 4:30; 7:2,10,19; 8:6,17) At this point
the
interview between Moses and Jehovah ends, and the action of the Exodus commences.
object was
to empower Moses to show forth a sign
easily, readily, without
preparation, and
so at any moment. He had come to the
time of life at which
he naturally
carried a staff. That he should be able at
his will to transform
that dead piece
of vegetable matter into an active,
living organism, would
show him endued
with supernatural power over both
the vegetable and
animal worlds,
and give him a means, always ready to
his hand, of
demonstrating the
truth of his mission. This alone was a great
matter. But the
fact that his rod
became a serpent, rather than any other
living thing, was
specially
calculated to impress the Egyptians. In one
form,
the serpent with
them meant “a
king,” or “a crown;” and the change of a staff
into a snake
would typify the
conversion of a shepherd into a monarch. In
another form
it was a sign for
a “multitude,” and the transformation
might remind them
that the single
stock or stem of Jacob was now
become “millions.” The
great serpent,
Apap, moreover, held a high
position in their mythology, as
powerful to
destroy and punish, whence they
might the more fear one who
seemed able to
create serpents at his pleasure. The
Israelites would perhaps
view the staff as
a rod to smite with, and connect its
change into a serpent
with the notion
that when rods or whips were not thought
severe enough,
rulers chastised
with “scorpions” (I Kings 12:11).
Altogether, the sign, if
viewed as a type, was threatening and alarming; perhaps the more
so on
account of its vagueness. Forms ill-defined, seen through mist,
affright men
more than those which are clear and definite.
powerful to
convince, the second was still more powerful (v. 8). It showed
Moses able to
produce, and cure, in a moment of time, the most virulent
malady to which
human nature was liable. The Egyptians greatly feared
leprosy, and
declared in their own accounts of the Exodus that they drove
the Israelites
out of their country because they were afflicted with that
loathsome
disease. The Israelites regarded it as the worst affliction that
could befall a
man. The hand of Moses made leprous within the folds of the
garment that
enwrapped his bosom typified perhaps the Israelitish nation,
corrupted by the
circumstances that enwrapped it around in
indicated that
Moses would, through the power committed to him, cleanse
the people from
their defilements, and. restore them to a state of spiritual
soundness. Thus
it was at once a warning and a promise. The sign appears
not to have been
used in Moses’ dealings with the Egyptians (ch. 7:10-17),
because it was
inappropriate as respected them, since they were beyond
cleansing — there
was no healing of their wound. Thus by this sign were
taught two
things:
ü That there
is a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness which
can wash away,
under the condition of repentance, any defilement;
and:
ü That there
is a state of sinfulness and corruption when repentance
ceases to be
possible, and the moral nature can no longer be restored,
and nothing remains
but that fearful looking-for of judgment to come
whereof the Epistle
to the Hebrews speaks (Hebrews 10:27). The signs
of the serpent and
the blood — signs of judgment — were for the
Egyptians and the
Israelites alike; the sign of the hand made leprous
and
then restored-a sign of mercy — was for the Israelites only.
could
symbolize nothing but war and destruction. That water should be turned
into it implied
that peace should be changed into war, prosperity into ruin,
quiet and tranquility
into a horrible carnage. The special reference would be
to the
destruction of Pharaoh’s host in the
plagues, as
especially the fifth, the seventh, and the tenth, would be glanced at
also. That the water became blood on
touching the ground of
indicate that it was the land and
people of
A very dreadful vengeance was thus
foreshadowed by the third sign, which
should have warned the Pharaoh of
the terrible results that would follow his
resistance to God’s will as
proclaimed by Moses. To the Israelites, on the
contrary, the sign was one assuring
them of final triumph; that the blood of
their enemies would be poured out
like water in the coming struggle, and
their resistance to God’s will be
signally punished.
BUT
NOT A DISQUALIFICATION. It is
remarkable that both Moses, the
great prophet of the First Covenant, and Paul, the “chosen vessel” (Acts 9:15)
for the publication of the Second Covenant, were ineffective as speakers; not
perhaps both “in presence base,” but
certainly both “in speech contemptible”
(II Corinthians 10:1,10). Speakers
and preachers should lay the lesson to
heart, and learn not to be over-proud of the gift of eloquence. A good
gift it is,
no doubt — when sanctified, a great gift — which may redound to
God’s
honor and glory, and for which they should be duly thankful, but
not a
necessary gift. The men of action, the men that have done the
greatest things,
and left their mark most enduringly upon the world, have seldom
been “men
of words.” Luther indeed was mighty in speech, and John
Knox, and
Whitfield. On the whole it must be said that those who
are great in deed are
rarely great in speech. And without eloquence a man may do God good
service in every walk of life, even
as a minister. The written sermon may go
as straight to the heart of the
audience as the spoken one. Ministerial effort
in house-to-house visiting may do as
much to convert a parish as any number
of extempore sermons. Example of
life preaches better than palaver. Let no
one who feels within him the
ministerial call, who longs to serve God by
bringing his fellow-men to Christ,
be deterred by the thought that he is
“slow
of speech and of a slow tongue.” God, without making him eloquent,
can “be with his mouth,” give his words force, make them powerful to the
conversion of souls. It has been said that there are many “dumb poets.” So
are there many “dumb preachers,” whoso weak and hesitating words God
blesses and renders effectual, so that in the end they have no cause to be
ashamed, but may point to those whom they have brought to Christ, and
exclaim with Paul, “Ye are our
work, ye are our epistle, the seal of our
apostleship
are ye in the Lord” (I Corinthians 9:1-2; II Corinthians 3:2).
Undoubtedly the general inclination
of men is towards self-assertion and
self-sufficiency, so that diffidence
and distrust of self are commonly
regarded as excellences. But there is a
diffidence which is wrongful, a
self-distrust which Scripture
condemns. Paul calls it “a
voluntary humility”
[Colossians 2:18,23] - (ejqelotapeinofrosu>nh) —
a humble-mindedness,
that is, which has its root in the
will; a man not choosing to think that he is
fit for high things, and determining
to keep down his aims, aspirations,
hopes, endeavours. The same apostle exhorts his converts “not to think of
themselves
more highly than they ought to think” (Romans
12:3), but at
the same time, by implication, “not to think too humbly, for he
tells them “to
think
soberly, according as God has dealt to every one the
measure of
faith.” We ought to take true views of ourselves, of our
capacities, powers,
faculties, even of the graces to which by God’s mercy we have been
able to
attain; and not to deny them or depreciate them. If we do so we
keep
ourselves back from high things, and this is how God punishes us. Moses
lost the gift of eloquence, which God would supernaturally have bestowed
upon him (v.12),
and lost one-half of his leadership (vs. 14 16), by his
persistent diffidence and distrust. We prevent ourselves from attaining
heights to which we might have attained, we keep ourselves
down in this
world and make our position low in the next, by similar folly.
the
affection of brothers. James and John, Simon and Andrew, Philip and
Bartholomew,
James and Jude, were sent out together by our Lord, that
they might enjoy
this sweet companionship. How
touching is the love of
Joseph for
Benjamin! If there is “a friend that sticketh
closer than a
brother,” (Proverbs
18:24) - the fact is noted for its rarity; and the force
of the phrase depends on the known
intensity of fraternal affection. Aaron,
though so long parted from Moses,
perhaps the more because so long
parted, would at the sight of him be
“glad in his heart.” Though not
brought up together, though educated
so differently, and gifted so
differently, though seemingly
intended for such different walks in life, the
two had a true affection, each for
each, which had survived a long and —
so far as we are told — complete
separation. Here, and again in v. 27, it
is the affection of Aaron which is
especially noticed — perhaps because it
was the more praiseworthy. Aaron,
the elder brother, might naturally have
felt some jealousy of Moses’
advancement above himself, of his superior
education, social position,
privileges, etc. But he seems to have been
entirely free from this feeling. Moses
might, for aught that he knew,
resume his old princely rank on his
return to
more into the shade. Aaron did not
disquiet himself about this. God knew
that he longed for the simple keen
pleasure of seeing his brother (“when he
seeth thee, he will be glad,”), of
pressing him to his heart, and kissing
him on the face (v. 27). Well would it be, if among Christians all
brothers
were thus minded.
TO THE
CHURCH. (vs. 14-16) - After all, the self-distrust of Moses was
turned by
God to good. Without it Moses would have been sole leader of the
entire
enterprise, must have appeared alone before the elders and before the
monarch, must
have undertaken the entire charge, direction, superintendence
of everything, must have
had upon his mind an unshared burden which it
would have been most trying
to bear. God’s strength indeed have been
sufficient for his
weakness. But his life could not but have been a weariness
to him. He would have
lacked the unspeakable solace and comfort of a loved
and loving
associate, to whom he might open — indeed, was bound to open
(v. 15) — all his mind, and with
whom he could constantly “take sweet
counsel
together.” (Psalm 55:14) - He would have also lacked the support,
so much needed by a shy man, of a
companion and coadjutor in crises and
times of difficulty, as when he
appeared first before the elders (vs. 29-30),
and when he appeared first before
Pharaoh (Exodus 5:1). Thus the
association of Aaron with himself in
the leadership must have been felt by
Moses as a benefit. And to Aaron it
was an unmixed advantage. The gift
with which God had endowed him, and
which he had no doubt sedulously
cultivated, caused him to be placed
almost on a par with his brother —
enabled him to be of use to him —
gave him loving companionship —
and caused him to have a large part
in the deliverance of his nation. After
forty years of separation, during
which he had never ceased to long for the
return of his brother, Aaron found
himself associated in the closest possible
way with Moses, made his “right-hand
man,” his other self, his constant
aider and assister. After a wholly
undistinguished life, which had lasted
eighty-three years (Exodus 7:7), he
found himself brought into a
position of the highest dignity and
responsibility. And the Church was
benefited greatly by the double
leadership. Moses, the man of thought, was
able to devote himself exclusively
to thinking out all the details of the great
work entrusted to him. Aaron, the
man of words, was able to give all his
attention to the framing of
addresses whereby he might advance the plans
of his brother. (No doubt
all of the above is true, but originally, it was God’s
will for both gifts to be centered
in Moses – God would have been better that
a brother in His Providence – I have
no authority to question the commentary
but the whole Bible teaches that it
is better to do what God asks the first
time, it is better “to obey than sacrifice” (I
Samuel 15:22) later. God
knows best – who knows “his breach of promise” or “altering of purpose”
– (Numbers 14:34) and the ends which these allowances bring and
how
far short they would have been
in comparison to the
original purposes which
God
had willed? - CY –
2010 – the following is a whole different matter!)
So in the Christian Church
there have always been, and will always be,
“diversities
of gifts.” At one time they are “gifts
of healing, tongues,
prophecy,
interpretation, discerning of spirits, faith, wisdom, prudence”
(I Corinthians
12:4-10); at another, preaching power, administrative
energy,
learning, scholarship, influence,
and the like. Seldom are even two of
these
gifts united in the same individual.
The Church prospers by utilizing the
gifts
of all, assigning to each man the
position suited to him, and taking
care that
he has a fair field for the employment
of his special gift. In this way, “the
whole
building fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every
joint
supplieth, according
to the effectual working in the measure of
every
part, maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love”
(Ephesians 4:16).
MOSES ASKS LEAVE OF JETHRO AND THE LORD
GIVES DIRECTION
vs. 18-23 – “And Moses went and returned to
Jethro his father in law”, (He is
called
Reuel in ch. 2:18, and Raguel in Numbers 10:29 [the same word is used
in the
original for both]. Reuel is probably
his proper name, and Jethro his
official
title) “and said unto him, Let me go, I
pray thee, and return unto my
brethren which are in
said to Moses, Go in peace. If Moses had, as we have supposed, been
accepted
into the Midianitish nation, he would need
permission to withdraw himself from
the
tribal head. Nations and tribes were at
this time anxious to keep up their numbers,
and
jealous of the desertion even of a single member. Jethro, however, made no
opposition
to the return of Moses to
accompanied
by his wife and sons (v. 20). Though
Moses had a direct command
from
God and to have quitted his service without permission, to have left
his flock
in the
Sinaitic valleys, and proceeded straight to
would have
been unkind, ungrateful, and contrary to the accepted standard of tribal
morality at
the time. Moses therefore went back to Midian from Sinai before
proceeding
to
to that
which he was about to take — in order to obtain Jethro’s consent to his going,
thus acting
the part of a faithful servant and a good subject. It would be well if all who
believe
themselves to have Divine missions, and to be highly gifted, would follow
Moses’
example, and not make their mission and high gifts an excuse for
neglect of
ordinary
duties and obligations. Moses’ example, and the words of One higher
than
Moses,
should teach them that it becomes all men to “fulfil all righteousness” –
(Matthew
3:15). If those with high missions neglect even small social duties, they
“give an
occasion to the adversary to blaspheme.” And the LORD said unto Moses
in Midian, Go, return into
And Moses took his wife and his sons, and
set them upon an ass, and he returned
to the
said unto Moses, When thou goest to return
into
wonders” - The
miracles wrought in
mophethim,
“portents,” and ‘othoth, “signs.” Mophethim, the
word
here used
signifies
something out of the ordinary course of nature, and corresponds to the
Greek te>rata (from te>rav, — ter’-as; of uncertain affinity; a prodigy
or
omen: —
wonder) and the Latin portenta. It is a different word from
that used in ch.3:20.
In “all these
wonders” are included, not only the three signs of ch. 4:3-9,
but the
whole series of miracles afterwards wrought in
at in ch. 3:20. “before
Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will
harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. I will harden his heart.
This
expression, here used for the first time, and repeated so frequently in chs.
7-14., has
given offence to many. Men, it is said, harden their own hearts against
God; God does
not actively interfere to harden the heart of anyone. And this is so
far true,
that a special interference of God on the occasion, involving a supernatural
hardening of
Pharaoh’s heart, is not to be thought of. But among the natural
punishments
which God has attached to sin, would seem to be the hardening of
the entire
nature of the man who sins. If men
“do not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gives them up to a reprobate
mind” (Romans 1:28); if they
resist the
Spirit, He “takes his holy Spirit from
them” (Psalm 51:11); if they sin
against
light He withdraws the light; if
they stifle their natural affections of
kindness, compassion and the like, it is a law
of His providence that those
affections shall wither and decay. This seems
to be the “hardening of the heart”
here intended — not an abnormal and miraculous
interference with the soul of
Pharaoh,
but the natural effect upon his soul under God’s moral government of
those acts
which he wilfully and wrongfully committed.
“And thou shalt say
unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD,
“my firstborn” - Not only “as dear to me as to a father his
firstborn” (Kalisch),
but the
only nation that I have adopted, and taken into covenant, so as
to be unto me
“a peculiar
people above all the nations that are upon the earth” (Deuteronomy
14:2).
Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I
will slay thy son, even thy firstborn”. For the
fulfillment of the threat, see ch.12:29.
Moses did not
utter it till all other arguments were exhausted, and he knew that he was
having his
last interview with the monarch (chps.
10:29; 11:4, 5). In this reserve and
in the
whole series of his dealings with the Egyptian king, we must regard him as
simply
carrying
out the special directions which, after his return to
from the
Almighty. (See <020611>Exodus 6:11; 7:9,15-19;
8:1,5,16,20)
all cases
to tell even those in authority over us the reasons, much less all the
reasons, which actuate
us. Moses wanted Jethro’s permission to quit his
adopted tribe,
and return to his native country and his people. He gave a
reason which was not
untrue, but which was far from being his sole, or even
his main, reason. If he had said more, if he had revealed his
mission, he
would probably
have raised a storm of opposition to his departure. He would
have been called
a
fanatic,
a visionary, a madman; and everything would have
been said that was
possible to deter him from carrying out his projects. If
Moses felt, as he
may have felt, that he was too weak to encounter such a
storm of opposition,
he was wise to be silent and so not arouse it.
GRANTED
CHEERFULLY. (v. 19) - Jethro’s
answer, “Go in peace,” may
well be taken as a pattern by those
in authority. It is kindly, gracious, and
ungrudging. The chieftain of a tribe might naturally have demurred to the
withdrawal of a family of subjects, the master to the loss of a valuable servant,
the head of a household to parting
with near kinsfolk. But Jethro, deeming
Moses’ plea a sufficient one, is
careful not to mar the grace of his concession
by a single word of objection, reproach, or whining. Nor is “Go in peace”
even a bare consent, but a consent
embodying a blessing. It is equivalent to
“Go, and the Lord
go with thee!” Note also the absence of inquisitiveness.
Jethro does not pester Moses with
questions — does not ask, “Is the reason
thou hast assigned thy true reason,”
or “thy sole reason?” or, “When wilt thou
return?” or, “Why take thy wife and
children?” or, “How wilt thou live in
near connection by doubt or
distrust, or even undue curiosity. He will not
travel beyond the record. His consent
has been asked. He gives it freely,
fully cheerfully.
something
in the hesitation of Moses which caused it not to be wholly
displeasing
to God. Once he was “angered” (ch. 3:14),
but even then not
greatly offended
— content to show His anger by inflicting a slight penalty.
Now, when Moses
still delayed in Midian, how gentle the rebuke that is
administered — “Go, return;” and to the rebuke moreover
is appended an
encouragement — “all the men are dead who sought thy
life.” Observe also
that no
sooner does Moses obey, than his reluctance
seems wholly forgiven;
the Lord appears
afresh to him, and rewards his
obedience by fresh revelations.
“
acknowledged, is
breathed into the prophet’s ear as he enters on the Path of
obedience. What may he not expect, if he continues in it! Surely blessings
upon blessings. Deliverance, triumph, continued,
never-ending protection are
assured to
them whom God declares to be His children. Moses, as their
leader,
will have the glory of their success. Even the
might of Pharaoh will be.
impotent if used against them. Should
Pharaoh refuse to liberate God’s
“firstborn,”
he will lose his own.
MOSES IS NEGLIGENT CONCERNING HIS SON’S CIRCUMCISION
vs. 24-26 – “And it came to pass by the way
in the inn, that the LORD met him,
and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off
the
foreskin of her son, and cast it at his
feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art
thou to me.
So He let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art,
because of the circumcision. The transition is abrupt from the promise of
triumph
over
Pharaoh to the threat of instant death. But we must bear in mind that some
days may
have elapsed between the two, and that the sin which provoked the menace
was
probably not committed at the date of the promise. The narrative of vs 24-26 is
obscure
from its brevity; but the most probable explanation of the circumstances is,
that
Zipporah had been delivered of her second son, Eliezer, some few days before
she set out
on the journey to
not
incapacitate a person from exertion for more than a day or two. On the journey,
the
eighth day
from the birth of the child arrived, and his circumcision ought to have taken
place; but
Zipporah had a repugnance to the rite, and deferred it, Moses weakly
consenting
to the illegality. At the close of the eighth day, when Moses went to rest
for the
night, he was seized with a sudden and dangerous illness, which he regarded,
and rightly
regarded, as a God-inflicted punishment, sent to chastise his sin in breaking
the Divine
command Genesis 17:10-12). Zipporah understood the matter in the same
way; and,
as her husband was too ill to perform the rite, she herself with her own hand
cut
off her
boy’s foreskin, and, still indignant at what she had been forced to do, east it
at
her
husband’s feet, with the reproach — “Surely
a bloody husband art thou to me.”
The rite
once performed, however reluctantly, God remitted his anger, and. allowed
Moses to
recover his health, and pursue his journey.
PURPOSE OF A
LIFE. – (vs. 24-26) - To an Israelite the circumcision of his
male
children on the eighth day was a plain practical duty, resting upon a
positive
precept, which was unambiguous and peremptory. Genesis 17:
10-14.) Moses,
probably in deference to the wishes of his wife, who disliked
the custom, had
allowed his son, Eliezer, to remain
uncircumcised beyond
the appointed
time, perhaps making the excuse to himself that during a
journey such a
rite could not conveniently be performed, and intending that
the thing should
be done when they reached
was plain — “He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you”
and nothing had been said by God of
any circumstances under which the rite
might be deferred. It was the
appointed means by which the child was to be
brought into covenant with God; and
if he died before the performance of the
rite, he would die out of covenant,
and so suffer a wrong. Moses probably
thought that his sin was a little
matter — perhaps hardly recognized it as a sin
at all. But it was the “little rift
within the lute” which destroyed the whole
value of the instrument. He who “shall keep the whole law, and yet offend
in
one point, is guilty of all” (James 2:10). God thought the neglect no small
matter, and would have punished it,
had it not been repaired, with death. It can
never be a small matter to neglect
any command of God, be it to perform a rite,
or to undergo one, or to keep a particular
day holy, or any other. When a
positive command is admitted to have come
from God, the obligation to obey
it.
And so this little duty neglected, had nearly cost Moses his life, Zipporah
her husband, the child his natural
protector. Moses’ death at this period would
have left the whole purpose of his
life unaccomplished, have handed over the
deliverance of
special training to have been
wasted. Let men beware, then, of the neglect of
little duties, the allowance in
themselves of “little
sins.” Let them
beware
especially of being led into such “little sins,” by an over-complacent wife,
a friend, or a companion. Many a man
would have stood
firm, but for such
seductive influence. A man who is
truly manly will resist it, and risk the loss
of human affection, to secure the Divine
approval
THE
REUNITING OF MOSES AND AARON
vs. 27-28 – “And the LORD said to Aaron, Go
into the wilderness to meet
Moses. And he went, and met him in the
mount of God, and kissed him.
And Moses told Aaron all the words of the
LORD who had sent him, and all
the signs which He had commanded him”. The scene suddenly shifts. Moses is left
in the
wilderness to recover his strength and make such arrangements with respect to
his wife
and children as he thinks best under the circumstances. We are carried
away to
only heard
previously that he could “speak well,” and
was to assist Moses as
spokesman
in his enterprise (vs. 14-16). We now find God revealing Himself to
Aaron also,
and directing his movements, as He had those of Moses. Aaron had
perhaps
already formed the design of visiting his brother (v. 14), and would have
sought him
in Midian but for the direction now given him. That direction was
probably
more definite than is expressed in the text, and enabled him to set forth
confidently,
without the fear of missing his brother. At any rate, under God’s
guidance he
went and met him in the Sinaitic district. The joy of meeting is
briefly described
in the single phrase “he kissed him.”
The meeting was followed
by a full
explanation, “all the signs” on the
part of Moses, both of the nature of his
own mission
and of the part which Aaron was to take in it.
It might have seemed that God had
now done enough to set on foot the
deliverance of His people. He had
appeared to Moses, overcome his
reluctance to be leader, given him
the power of working some great
miracles, and allowed him to devolve
a portion of his duties upon his
brother; Moses was on his way to
Aaron was minded to go forth to meet
and greet him. Humanly speaking,
nothing more was needed for the
initiation of the work. But God, who
“seeth
not as man seeth,” does not stint His arm when He has taken a
business in hand. It would expedite
matters if Aaron were to be directed
where to meet Moses, and the two
brothers were to have their conference
at once, and arrange their course of
proceedings. So Aaron is visited,
probably by an angel, and sent to
meet Moses, and told where he will find
him; and by these means the meeting
is brought about with all speed,
Aaron enlightened as to his duties,
and plans arranged to be put in act as
soon as
companionship some days or weeks
earlier than they would have done if
left to themselves, and their first
interview with Pharaoh is advanced
correspondingly. And as
with His miraculous, so with His ordinary help.
God does not stint it. His grace is ever sufficient for men. (II
Corinthians
12:9) - He gives them all that they can possibly
need, and more than they
would ever think of asking. (Ephesians 3:20) - He loves to pour out His
blessings abundantly on those that
are true to Him; and makes “all things
work
together for their good;” (Romans 8:28) - goes out of His way to
procure advantages for them; and
loads them with His favors. (Psalm 68:19)
Moses told Aaron “all the words of the Lord” — made “a
clean breast” to
him, kept back none of the counsel
of God, so far as he had been made
acquainted with it. This was a kind,
a loving, and a pruden course.Half-
confidences are valueless; they
irritate rather than satisfy. If known to be
half-confidences, they offend; if
mistaken for full ones, they mislead and
conduct to disaster. Those who are
to be fellow-workers in any
undertaking — more especially any
great one — should have entire
confidence each in each, and be
wholly unreserved one towards the other.
There is good sense and good advice
in the motto, “Trust me not at all or
all in all.”
MOSES AND AARON REVEAL GOD’S PLANS TO THE
CHILDREN OF
vs. 29-31 – “And Moses and Aaron went and
gathered together all the elders of
the children of
spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the
sight of the people”. Aaron at
once
entered on
his office of “spokesman” (v. 16),
declaring to the elders all God’s
dealings
with his brother. Aaron also, and not Moses, as we should have expected
(v. 17), “did the signs” - God,
by allowing him to do them, sanctioning this
delegation
of power. On later occasions, we find Aaron more than once required by
God to work
the miracles. (See chps. 7:19; 8:5,16.) “In the sight of the
people” –
It is not probable that the people were present at
the first meeting of the elders; but
the sacred
historian, anxious
to
compress his narrative, and bent simply on conveying
to us the
fact of Aaron’s
success with both elders and people, omits stages in the
history which he
supposes that any reader can supply, e.g. the doing of the signs in
the sight
of the elders, their belief in them, and their subsequent assembling of the
people. “And the
people believed” - This ready faith stands in strong contrast with
the
ordinary incredulous temper of the Israelitish people, who were “a faithless and
stubborn generation” — a generation that “believed
not in God, and trusted not
in his salvation” (Psalm
78:22). “and when they heard that the LORD had
visited the children of
they bowed their heads and worshipped”. Moses seems to have parted with
Zipporah
and his children in Horeb, and to have sent them back to Jethro (ch.18:2),
perhaps
because they might have interfered with the work which he had to do,
perhaps
because he thought
the coming
struggle. He journeyed onward from Horeb with Aaron for his sole
companion,
and had abundant time for taking counsel with him, and exercising the
influence
over him which high intellect and education
combined will always give to
their
possessor. The journey from Horeb to
On arriving
in
(ch. 3:16),
proceeded at once to “gather together
all the elders of
all these
who exercised local authority over their countrymen in the various districts
which
they
inhabited. Through the mouth of Aaron, Moses declared all that had been
revealed to
him at the
burning bush and subsequently,
exhibiting at the same time the credentials which
proved him
an ambassador from God, i.e. the three miracles which he
had been empowered
to work at
any moment (vs. 2-8). The elders, being themselves convinced, summoned an
assembly of
the people, as is implied though not expressed in v. 30; and the people, having
heard the
words of Aaron and seen the signs, were also convinced, and bowing their heads,
worshipped
the God whose ambassadors had appeared before them.
less nor more but
“declared the whole counsel of God” (Acts
20:27) –
They summoned the elders as commanded (ch. 3:16); they delivered
God’s
message to them (ib.); they wrought the signs which they had been
told to
work v. 17); they
severally kept to their appointed offices; and the result was
complete success
so far. The elders and people hearkened unto them,
believed, gave in
their unqualified assent and consent to all that was put
before them. And
this was according to the promise of God, “they shall
hearken
to thy voice” (ch. 3:18). Moses had disbelieved the promise, and
exclaimed, “Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my
voice” (v. 1); but Moses
was now proved mistaken. “The foolishness of
God
is wiser than men” (I Corinthians 1:25). God knew better than Moses;
He was faithful; He kept His word. As Moses and Aaron had been true to
Him, and followed exactly His
commands, so He proved
Himself true to
them, and amply rewarded their
obedience. Moses and Aaron
were from
this time the accepted leaders of
the nation.
no sooner hears the promise of
deliverance, than it displays its gratitude by
“bowing
the head and worshipping.” Many Christians talk of being
thankful for God’s blessings
vouchsafed to them, but never think of showing
forth their thankfulness by any
extra act of worship, or even any increased
intensity in that portion of their
ordinary worship which consists in
thanksgiving. A sad sign this of
modern luke-warmness, (Revelation 3:16-22)
an indication that the last times
are drawing near, when “the love of many
shall
wax cold.” (Matthew
24:12) - Time was when each national success was
at once celebrated by a “Te Deum,” – (an early Christian hymn of
praise –
literally – You God, we Praise) - and when each blessing granted to an
individual drew forth a special
offering. The thankfulness that does not show
itself in some such overt act
must be a very poor thankfulness, a very weak
and washed-out feeling.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library,
LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials
are reproduced by permission."