Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 4:19
And the LORD said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life.
19. That Moses should now be commanded by God to do what he has already both determined to do, and obtained Jethro’s permission to do, is remarkable; and, as Dillm. remarks, can only be explained by the fact that the verse is by a different narrator from v. 18 (viz. J) 1 [107] .
[107] ‘Said’ cannot, consistently with Hebrew grammar, be interpreted to mean ‘ had said.’
which sought thy life ] the Pharaoh and his servants (Exo 2:15; Exodus cf.23).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Exo 4:19
All the men are dead which sought thy life.
The death of enemies
1. In a world like this, the greater the man the more enemies he will have.
2. Death in this world is constantly sweeping away our enemies as well as friends.
I. The death of our enemies should restrain resentment. Were it not wrong to return evil for evil, to revile those who revile us, it would scarcely be wise. While we are preparing our retaliating machinery, death is doing his work with them. Our blows will scarcely reach them before they fall, and then, when they are gone, they can do us no harm. But if we have retaliated, the memory of the retaliation will give us pain.
II. The death of our enemies should stimulate us to overcome evil by good. The sublimest conquest is not that which will crush the body or wound the feelings, but that which will subdue the enmity and win the hostile soul to friendship and love. (Homilist.)
The Divine precaution for the safety of Christian workers
I. It is sometimes manifested by removing good men and great workers from dangerous associations.
1. Christian workers are sometimes removed from the pride of high society.
2. Christian workers are sometimes removed from the contamination of great sin.
3. Christian workers are sometimes removed from the pedantry of great learning.
4. Christian workers are sometimes removed from physical evil.
II. It is sometimes manifested by informing good men and great workers of the removal of danger. Time aids the enterprises of heaven. Death subdues the hatred and passion of men.
III. The divine precaution does not allow an abandonment of the work committed to the good. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Death of enemies
Hearing a whole choir of birds chirping merrily together, my curiosity was excited to inquire into the occasion of their convocation and merriment, when I quickly perceived a dead hawk in the bush, about which they made such a noise, seeming to triumph at the death of an enemy. I could not blame them for singing the knell of one who, like a cannibal, was wont to feed upon their living bodies, tearing them limb from limb, and scaring them with his frightful appearance. Over this bird, which was so formidable when alive, the most timid wren or titmouse did not now fear to chirp and hop. This occurrence brought to my mind the case of tyrants and oppressors. When living, they are the terror of mankind; but when dead, they are the objects of general contempt and scorn. When the wicked perish, there is shouting (Pro 11:10).
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 19. In Midian] This was a new revelation, and appears to have taken place after Moses returned to his father-in-law previous to his departure for Egypt.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This seems to have been a second vision, whereby God calls him forth to the present and speedy execution of that command which before was more generally delivered.
Which sought thy life, to wit, to take it away. See the like expression, 1Sa 22:23; 1Ki 19:14; Mat 2:20. God knew very well that one great cause of Mosess unwillingness to this undertaking was his carnal fear, though he was ashamed to profess it, and therefore gives him this cordial.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. all the men are dead whichsought thy lifeThe death of the Egyptian monarch took place inthe four hundred and twenty-ninth year of the Hebrew sojourn in thatland, and that event, according to the law of Egypt, took off hisproscription of Moses, if it had been publicly issued.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian,…. After he had obtained leave of his father-in-law to quit Midian, but before he left it;
go, return into Egypt: that is, directly, immediately; before he had only given him a commission at large to go thither, but had not fixed the time when he should go; but now he orders him to set forward at once:
for all the men are dead which sought thy life; to take it away, the king of Egypt, and his ministers, and the friends of the Egyptian Moses had slain; and this is said to encourage him to go; and though Moses had never expressed his fear on this account, or made it an objection, yet it might lie secretly in his heart, and be one reason of his backwardness to go into Egypt, and which was now removed.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Return of Moses to Egypt. – Exo 4:19-23. On leaving Midian, Moses received another communication from God with reference to his mission to Pharaoh. The word of Jehovah, in Exo 4:19, is not to be regarded as a summary of the previous revelation, in which case would be a pluperfect, nor as the account of another writer, who placed the summons to return to Egypt not in Sinai but in Midian. It is not a fact that the departure of Moses is given in Exo 4:18; all that is stated there is, that Jethro consented to Moses’ decision to return to Egypt. It was not till after this consent that Moses was able to prepare for the journey. During these preparations God appeared to him in Midian, and encouraged him to return, by informing him that all the men who had sought his life, i.e., Pharaoh and the relatives of the Egyptian whom he had slain, were now dead.
Exo 4:20 Moses then set out upon his journey, with his wife and sons. is not to be altered into , as Knobel supposes, notwithstanding the fact that the birth of only one son has hitherto been mentioned (Exo 2:22); for neither there, nor in this passage (Exo 4:25), is he described as the only son. The wife and sons, who were still young, he placed upon the ass (the one taken for the purpose), whilst he himself went on foot with “the staff of God” – as the staff was called with which he was to perform the divine miracles (Exo 4:17) – in his hand. Poor as his outward appearance might be, he had in his hand the staff before which the pride of Pharaoh and all his might would have to bow.
Exo 4:21 “ In thy going (returning) to Egypt, behold, all the wonders which I have put into thy hand, thou doest them before Pharaoh.” , , portentum , is any object (natural event, thing, or person) of significance which surpasses expectation or the ordinary course of nature, and excites wonder in consequence. It is frequently connected with , , a sign (Deu 4:34; Deu 6:22; Deu 7:19, etc.), and embraces the idea of within itself, i.e., wonder-sign. The expression, “ all those wonders,” does not refer merely to the three signs mentioned in Exo 4:2-9, but to all the miracles which were to be performed by Moses with the staff in the presence of Pharaoh, and which, though not named, were put into his hand potentially along with the staff. – But all the miracles would not induce Pharaoh to let Israel go, for Jehovah would harden his heart. , lit., I will make his heart firm, so that it will not move, his feelings and attitude towards Israel will not change. For or (Exo 14:4) and (Exo 14:17), we find in Exo 7:3, “I will make Pharaoh’s heart hard, or unfeeling;” and in Exo 10:1, “I have made his heart heavy,” i.e., obtuse, or insensible to impressions or divine influences. These three words are expressive of the hardening of the heart.
The hardening of Pharaoh is ascribed to God, not only in the passages just quoted, but also in Exo 9:12; Exo 10:20, Exo 10:27; Exo 11:10; Exo 14:8; that is to say, ten times in all; and that not merely as foreknown or foretold by Jehovah, but as caused and effected by Him. In the last five passages it is invariably stated that “Jehovah hardened ( ) Pharaoh’s heart.” But it is also stated just as often, viz., ten times, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, or made it heavy or firm; e.g., in Exo 7:13, Exo 7:22; Exo 8:15; Exo 9:35, “and Pharaoh’s heart was (or became) hard;” Exo 7:14, “Pharaoh’s heart was heavy;” in Exo 9:7, ; in Exo 8:11, Exo 8:28; Exo 9:34, or ; in Exo 13:15, “for Pharaoh made his heart hard.” According to this, the hardening of Pharaoh was quite as much his own act as the decree of God. But if, in order to determine the precise relation of the divine to the human causality, we look more carefully at the two classes of expressions, we shall find that not only in connection with the first sign, by which Moses and Aaron were to show their credentials as the messengers of Jehovah, sent with the demand that he would let the people of Israel go (Exo 7:13-14), but after the first five penal miracles, the hardening is invariably represented as his own. After every one of these miracles, it is stated that Pharaoh’s heart was firm, or dull, i.e., insensible to the voice of God, and unaffected by the miracles performed before his eyes, and the judgments of God suspended over him and his kingdom, and he did not listen to them (to Moses and Aaron with their demand), or let the people go (Exo 7:22; Exo 8:8, Exo 8:15, Exo 8:28; Exo 9:7). It is not till after the sixth plague that it is stated that Jehovah made the heart of Pharaoh firm (Exo 9:12). At the seventh the statement is repeated, that “Pharaoh made his heart heavy” (Exo 9:34-35); but the continued refusal on the part of Pharaoh after the eighth and ninth (Exo 10:20, Exo 10:27) and his resolution to follow the Israelites and bring them back again, are attributed to the hardening of his heart by Jehovah (Exo 14:8, cf. Exo 14:4 and Exo 14:17). This hardening of his own heart was manifested first of all in the fact, that he paid not attention to the demand of Jehovah addressed to him through Moses, and would not let Israel go; and that not only at the commencement, so long as the Egyptian magicians imitated the signs performed by Moses and Aaron (though at the very first sign the rods of the magicians, when turned into serpents, were swallowed by Aaron’s, Exo 7:12-13), but even when the magicians themselves acknowledged, “This is the finger of God” (Exo 8:19). It was also continued after the fourth and fifth plagues, when a distinction was made between the Egyptians and the Israelites, and the latter were exempted from the plagues, – a fact of which the king took care to convince himself (Exo 9:7). And it was exhibited still further in his breaking his promise, that he would let Israel go if Moses and Aaron would obtain from Jehovah the removal of the plague, and in the fact, that even after he had been obliged to confess, “I have sinned, Jehovah is the righteous one, I and my people are unrighteous” (Exo 9:27), he sinned again, as soon as breathing-time was given him, and would not let the people go (Exo 9:34-35). Thus Pharaoh would not bend his self-will to the will of God, even after he had discerned the finger of God and the omnipotence of Jehovah in the plagues suspended over him and his nation; he would not withdraw his haughty refusal, notwithstanding the fact that he was obliged to acknowledge that it was sin against Jehovah. Looked at from this side, the hardening was a fruit of sin, a consequence of that self-will, high-mindedness, and pride which flow from sin, and a continuous and ever increasing abuse of that freedom of the will which is innate in man, and which involves the possibility of obstinate resistance to the word and chastisement of God even until death. As the freedom of the will has its fixed limits in the unconditional dependence of the creature upon the Creator, so the sinner may resist the will of God as long as he lives. But such resistance plunges him into destruction, and is followed inevitably by death and damnation. God never allows any man to scoff at Him. Whoever will not suffer himself to be led, by the kindness and earnestness of the divine admonitions, to repentance and humble submission to the will of God, must inevitably perish, and by his destruction subserve the glory of God, and the manifestation of the holiness, righteousness, and omnipotence of Jehovah.
But God not only permits a man to harden himself; He also produces obduracy, and suspends this sentence over the impenitent. Not as though God took pleasure in the death of the wicked! No; God desires that the wicked should repent of his evil way and live (Eze 33:11); and He desires this most earnestly, for “He will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1Ti 2:4, cf. 2Pe 3:9). As God causes His earthly sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust (Mat 5:45), so He causes His sun of grace to shine upon all sinners, to lead them to life and salvation. But as the earthly sun produces different effects upon the earth, according to the nature of the soil upon which it shines, so the influence of the divine sun of grace manifests itself in different ways upon the human heart, according to its moral condition.
(Note: “The sun, by the force of its heat, moistens the wax and dries the clay, softening the one and hardening the other; and as this produces opposite effects by the same power, so, through the long-suffering of God, which reaches to all, some receive good and others evil, some are softened and others hardened.” – ( Theodoret, quaest. 12 in Ex.))
The penitent permit the proofs of divine goodness and grace to lead them to repentance and salvation; but the impenitent harden themselves more and more against the grace of God, and so become ripe for the judgment of damnation. The very same manifestation of the mercy of God leads in the case of the one to salvation and life, and in that of the other to judgment and death, because he hardens himself against that mercy. In this increasing hardness on the part of the impenitent sinner against the mercy that is manifested towards him, there is accomplished the judgment of reprobation, first in God’s furnishing the wicked with an opportunity of bringing fully to light the evil inclinations, desires, and thoughts that are in their hearts; and then, according to an invariable law of the moral government of the world, in His rendering the return of the impenitent sinner more and more difficult on account of his continued resistance, and eventually rendering it altogether impossible. It is the curse of sin, that it renders the hard heart harder, and less susceptible to the gracious manifestations of divine love, long-suffering, and patience. In this twofold manner God produces hardness, not only permissive but effective; i.e., not only by giving time and space for the manifestation of human opposition, even to the utmost limits of creaturely freedom, but still more by those continued manifestations of His will which drive the hard heart to such utter obduracy that it is no longer capable of returning, and so giving over the hardened sinner to the judgment of damnation. This is what we find in the case of Pharaoh. After he had hardened his heart against the revealed will of God during the first five plagues, the hardening commenced on the part of Jehovah with the sixth miracle (Exo 9:12), when the omnipotence of God was displayed with such energy that even the Egyptian magicians were covered with the boils, and could no longer stand before Moses (Exo 9:11). And yet, even after this hardening on the part of God, another opportunity was given to the wicked king to repent and change his mind, so that on two other occasions he acknowledged that his resistance was sin, and promised to submit to the will of Jehovah (Exo 9:27., Exo 10:16.). But when at length, even after the seventh plague, he broke his promise to let Israel go, and hardened his heart again as soon as the plague was removed (Exo 9:34-35), Jehovah so hardened Pharaoh’s heart that he not only did not let Israel go, but threatened Moses with death if he ever came into his presence again (Exo 10:20, Exo 10:27-28). The hardening was now completed so that he necessarily fell a victim to judgment; though the very first stroke of judgment in the slaying of the first-born was an admonition to consider and return. And it was not till after he had rejected the mercy displayed in this judgment, and manifested a defiant spirit once more, in spite of the words with which he had given Moses and Aaron permission to depart, “Go, and bless me also” (Exo 12:31-32), that God completely hardened his heart, so that he pursued the Israelites with an army, and was overtaken by the judgment of utter destruction.
Now, although the hardening of Pharaoh on the part of Jehovah was only the complement of Pharaoh’s hardening of his own heart, in the verse before us the former aspect alone is presented, because the principal object was not only to prepare Moses for the opposition which he would meet with from Pharaoh, but also to strengthen his weak faith, and remove at the very outset every cause for questioning and omnipotence of Jehovah. If it was by Jehovah Himself that Pharaoh was hardened, this hardening, which He not only foresaw and predicted by virtue of His omniscience, but produced and inflicted through His omnipotence, could not possibly hinder the performance of His will concerning Israel, but must rather contribute to the realization of His purposes of salvation and the manifestation of His glory (cf. Exo 9:16; Exo 10:2; Exo 14:4, Exo 14:17-18).
Exo 4:22-23 In order that Pharaoh might form a true estimate of the solemnity of the divine command, Moses was to make known to him not only the relation of Jehovah to Israel, but also the judgment to which he would be exposed if he refused to let Israel go. The relation in which Israel stood to Jehovah was expressed by God in the words, “Israel is My first-born son.” Israel was Jehovah’s son by virtue of his election to be the people of possession (Deu 14:1-2). This election began with the call of Abraham to be the father of the nation in which all the families of the earth were to be blessed. On the ground of this promise, which was now to be realized in the seed of Abraham by the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, the nation of Israel is already called Jehovah’s “son,” although it was through the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai that it was first exalted to be the people of Jehovah’s possession out of all the nations (Exo 19:5-6). The divine sonship of Israel was therefore spiritual in its nature: it neither sprang from the fact that God, as the Creator of all nations, was also the Creator, or Begetter, and Father of Israel, nor was it founded, as Baumgarten supposes, upon “the physical generation of Isaac, as having its origin, not in the power of nature, but in the power of grace.” The relation of God, as Creator, to man His creature, is never referred to in the Old Testament as that of a father to a son; to say nothing of the fact that the Creator of man is Elohim, and not Jehovah. Wherever Jehovah is called the Father, Begetter, or Creator of Israel (even in Deu 32:18; Jer 2:27; Isa 44:8; Mal 1:6 and Mal 2:10), the fatherhood of God relates to the election of Israel as Jehovah’s people of possession. But the election upon which the of Israel was founded, is not presented in the aspect of a “begetting through the Spirit;” it is spoken of rather as acquiring or buying ( ), making ( ), founding or establishing ( , Deu 32:6). Even the expressions, “the Rock that begat thee,” “God that bare thee” (Deu 32:18), do not point to the idea of spiritual generation, but are to be understood as referring to the creation; just as in Psa 90:2, where Moses speaks of the mountains as “brought forth” and the earth as “born.” The choosing of Israel as the son of God was an adoption flowing from the free grace of God which involved the loving, fatherly treatment of the son, and demanded obedience, reverence, and confidence towards the Father (Mal 1:6). It was this which constituted the very essence of the covenant made by Jehovah with Israel, that He treated it with mercy and love (Hos 11:1; Jer 31:9, Jer 31:20), pitied it as a father pitieth his children (Psa 103:13), chastened it on account of its sins, yet did not withdraw His mercy from it (2Sa 7:14-15; Psa 89:31-35), and trained His son to be a holy nation by the love and severity of paternal discipline. – Still Israel was not only a son, but the “ first-born son ” of Jehovah. In this title the calling of the heathen is implied. Israel was not to be Jehovah’s only son, but simply the first-born, who was peculiarly dear to his Father, and had certain privileges above the rest. Jehovah was about to exalt Israel above all the nations of the earth (Deu 28:1). Now, if Pharaoh would not let Jehovah ‘s first-born son depart, he would pay the penalty in the life of his own first-born (cf. Exo 12:29). In this intense earnestness of the divine command, Moses had a strong support to his faith. If Israel was Jehovah’s first-born son, Jehovah could not relinquish him, but must deliver His son from the bondage of Egypt.
Exo 4:24-26 But if Moses was to carry out the divine commission with success, he must first of all prove himself to be a faithful servant of Jehovah in his own house. This he was to learn from the occurrence at the inn: an occurrence which has many obscurities on account of the brevity of the narrative, and has received many different interpretations. When Moses was on the way, Jehovah met him at the resting-place ( , see Gen 42:27), and sought to kill him. In what manner, is not stated: whether by a sudden seizure with some fatal disease, or, what is more probable, by some act proceeding directly from Himself, which threatened Moses with death. This hostile attitude on the part of God was occasioned by his neglect to circumcise his son; for, as soon as Zipporah cut off (circumcised) the foreskin of her son with a stone, Jehovah let him go. = , a rock, or stone, here a stone knife, with which, according to hereditary custom, the circumcision commanded by Joshua was also performed; not, however, because “stone knives were regarded as less dangerous than those of metal,” nor because “for symbolical reasons preference was given to them, as a simple production of nature, over the metal knives that had been prepared by human hands and were applied to daily use.” For if the Jews had detected any religious or symbolical meaning in stone, they would never have given it up for iron or steel, but would have retained it, like the Ethiopian tribe of the Alnaii, who used stone knives for that purpose as late as 150 years ago; whereas, in the Talmud, the use of iron or steel knives for the purpose of circumcision is spoken of, as though they were universally employed. Stone knives belong to a time anterior to the manufacture of iron or steel; and wherever they were employed at a later period, this arose from a devoted adherence to the older and simpler custom (see my Commentary on Jos 5:2). From the word “her son,” it is evident that Zipporah only circumcised one of the two sons of Moses (Exo 4:20); so that the other, not doubt the elder, had already been circumcised in accordance with the law. Circumcision had been enjoined upon Abraham by Jehovah as a covenant sign for all his descendants; and the sentence of death was pronounced upon any neglect of it, as being a breach of the covenant (Gen 17:14). Although in this passage it is the uncircumcised themselves who are threatened with death, yet in the case of children the punishment fell upon the parents, and first of all upon the father, who had neglected to keep the commandment of God. Now, though Moses had probably omitted circumcision simply from regard to his Midianitish wife, who disliked this operation, he had been guilty of a capital crime, which God could not pass over in the case of one whom He had chosen to be His messenger, to establish His covenant with Israel. Hence He threatened him with death, to bring him to a consciousness of his sin, either by the voice of conscience or by some word which accompanied His attack upon Moses; and also to show him with what earnestness God demanded the keeping of His commandments. Still He did not kill him; for his sin had sprung from weakness of the flesh, from a sinful yielding to his wife, which could both be explained and excused on account of his position in the Midianite’s house. That Zipporah’s dislike to circumcision had been the cause of the omission, has been justly inferred by commentators from the fact, that on Jehovah’s attack upon Moses, she proceeded at once to perform what had been neglected, and, as it seems, with inward repugnance. The expression, “She threw (the foreskin of her son) at his (Moses’) feet,” points to this ( , as in Isa 25:12). The suffix in ( his feet) cannot refer to the son, not only because such an allusion would give no reasonable sense, but also because the suffix refers to Moses in the immediate context, both before (in , Exo 4:24) and after (in , Exo 4:26); and therefore it is simpler to refer it to Moses here. From this it follows, then, that the words, “a blood-bridegroom art thou to me,” were addressed to Moses, and not to the boy. Zipporah calls Moses a blood-bridegroom, “because she had been compelled, as it were, to acquire and purchase him anew as a husband by shedding the blood of her son” ( Glass). “Moses had been as good as taken from her by the deadly attack which had been made upon him. She purchased his life by the blood of her son; she received him back, as it were, from the dead, and married him anew; he was, in fact, a bridegroom of blood to her” ( Kurtz). This she said, as the historian adds, after God had let Moses, go, , “with reference to the circumcisions.” The plural is used quite generally and indefinitely, as Zipporah referred not merely to this one instance, but to circumcision generally. Moses was apparently induced by what had occurred to decide not to take his wife and children with him to Egypt, but to send them back to his father-in-law. We may infer this from the fact, that it was not till after Israel had arrived at Sinai that he brought them to him again (Exo 18:2).
Exo 4:27-31 After the removal of the sin, which had excited the threatening wrath of Jehovah, Moses once more received a token of the divine favour in the arrival of Aaron, under the direction of God, to meet him at the Mount of God (Exo 3:1). To Aaron he related all the words of Jehovah, with which He had sent (commissioned) him ( with a double accusative, as in 2Sa 11:22; Jer 42:5), and all the signs which He had commanded him ( also with a double accusative, as in Gen 6:22). Another proof of the favour of God consisted of the believing reception of his mission on the part of the elders and the people of Israel. “ The people believed ” ( ) when Aaron communicated to them the words of Jehovah to Moses, and did the signs in their presence. “ And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and had looked upon their affliction, they bowed and worshipped.” ( Knobel is wrong in proposing to alter into , according to the Sept. rendering, ). The faith of the people, and the worship by which their faith was expressed, proved that the promise of the fathers still lived in their hearts. And although this faith did not stand the subsequent test (Exo 5), yet, as the first expression of their feelings, it bore witness to the fact that Israel was willing to follow the call of God.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
19. And the Lord said (56) unto Moses Some connect this sentence with what follows, as if God had spoken to his servant after permission to return had been given him by his father-in-law; but my opinion rather is, that what had before been omitted is here inserted out of its place. Such repetition is frequent in the Scriptures. (57) Moses, therefore, adds to what he had already said, that the fear of danger was removed, since God had testified that the recollection of his having slain the Egyptian had ceased. For this would have been a stumblingblock at the very outset, if Moses had supposed that this accusation would have met him; not because his conscience smote him before God, but because he would have been rejected by the perverse judgments of men. Therefore, on this point, also, God provides against his fear, assuring him that the enemies were dead who had plotted against his life. And, perhaps, he now particularly notices this, because in asking for leave to depart, he could safely speak of it; for it is probable that Jethro, before he had married his daughter to an unknown foreigner, had demanded the cause of his exile; since it was easy to conjecture by his wandering in the Desert, that he had been expelled from his country. Having then confessed that he fled from the wrath of the king, he now says that he is recalled by divine revelation, and that a safe return is promised him. Nor is he guilty of falsehood; for, amongst other things, God had promised him that no danger awaited him from his former enemies.
(56) Lat. , “had said.”
(57) “ And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, i e. , at a different time from that when he appeared to him in the wilderness at Mount Sinai. Things are not always recorded in the sacred writings in the order in which they happened.” — Rosenmuller in loco
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 4:19
THE DIVINE PRECAUTION FOR THE SAFETY OF CHRISTIAN WORKERS
I. It is sometimes manifested by removing good men and great workers from dangerous associations. The Divine Being uses every precaution for the safety of those employed in the great moral enterprises of humanity. He does not achieve their safety by miracles, but by prudence, even though it may involve delay in the completion of His plan. Sometimes we hear Christian workers say that they can go fearlessly into danger, because they are assured of the protection of heaven; they are not warranted in talking or acting thus, for, as a rule, God gives the truest safety to those who keep the furthest from peril. It is the Divine plan to take Moses away from Egypt until those who would will him are dead, rather than expose him to their continued rage.
1. Christian workers are sometimes removed from the pride of high society. Moses was providentially removed from the pride and splendour of the Egyptian palace, in order that he might retain the simplicity of a true servant of God. Gaiety is a great temptation to a Christian worker. It has ruined many men of early promise. How many workers in the world and in the Church to-day owe their utility and success to the fact that God removed them from the social allurements of their youth. True, the change from the palace of Pharaoh to the solitude of the desert may not have been welcome at first, but now it is the gladdest recollection of your life.
2. Christian workers are sometimes removed from the contamination of great sin. The palace of Pharaoh was most unfavourable to the cultivation of a pure life. It was the seat of despotism, and despotism is generally allied to almost every other sin. In this royal court Moses was in danger of contamination, and that at the most susceptible period of his life. Hence God removed him from this school of vice, and brought him into the primitive simplicity of a desert family. Many a youthful worker for God has been ruined by a bad example.
3. Christian workers are sometimes removed from the pedantry of great learning. In the Egyptian palace Moses had every facility for acquiring knowledge, and there was a possibility that he might become mentally proud, and think the claims of religious service beneath his talent and education. Multitudes have been turned aside from moral service by the conceit of imagined Wisdom
4. Christian workers are sometimes removed from physical peril.
II. It is sometimes manifested by informing good men and great workers of the removal of danger. God informs Moses that the men who sought his life are dead. See the folly of men who oppose themselves to the plans of heaven; they will soon die, and their death will be the signal of victory to the servant whose moral fitness has been enhanced by the solitude rendered necessary by their rage. Time aids the enterprises of heaven. Death subdues the hatred and passion of men. God is interested in the mission of His servants, so that He aids them in its fulfilment.
III. That the Divine Precaution does not allow an abandonment of the work committed to the good. Moses was to go to his work again. Temporary perils and hindrances are not to entirely set aside Christian toil. Israel must be emancipated. The servant of God must fulfil his calling, even though he has to wait years in the desert before he can commence it.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Exo. 4:18-19.
(17)Parental Dealing!On one occasion a minister of God was counselling a little girl to evince gratitude always for the kind father whom God had graciously given her, when she looked up in his face with her soft, blue eyes, and exclaimed, He never speaks kind to me. Can we wonder if that child grows up undutifuldisobedientvoid of all confiding tenderness towards her parent?
Exo. 4:18-19.
(18)Presumptuous Christian!That sailor is a fool who wilfully runs his vessel among the foaming breakers because his ship is stoutbears a lifeboat on her deck, and can be rescued by watchers on the shore. Trench relates the visit of a gentleman to the scene of a colliery explosion. The mine was full of chokedamp; and yet his guide persisted in entering it with his Davy-lamp. That light was invented to protect miners, and not to make them presume. Christians presume on the providence of God when they rush recklessly and uncalled into danger.
Whateer our thoughts or purpose be,
They cannot reach their destined end,
Unless, oh God. they go with Thee,
And with Thy thoughts and purpose blend.
Exo. 4:18-19.
(19)Confidence!Luther, when making his way into the presence of Cardinal Cajetan, who had summoned him to answer for his heretical opinions at Augsburg, was asked by one of the cardinals minions where he would find a shelter if his patron the Elector of Saxony deserted him. His immediate reply was, Under the shield of heaven. Under that shield Moses was to enter Pharaohs presence.
A strong tower is the Lord our God,
To shelter and defend us;
Our shield His arm, our sword His rod.
Against our foes befriend us.
Luther.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(19) In Midian.Moses appears to have delayed his departure after he obtained permission to go from Jethro. Hence the address Go, return, which is peremptory.
All the men which sought thy life.Not only the Pharaoh (Exo. 2:23), but the kindred of the murdered man, and the officials empowered by the Pharaoh to arrest Moses. As forty years had elapsed since the homicide, this is readily conceivable.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. All the men are dead See Exo 2:23, where the death of the king is related immediately before Moses’ call . This event seems in several ways to have been critical for the fortunes of Israel .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 4:19 And the LORD said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life.
Ver. 19. For all the men are dead. ] Here the Lord lays his finger upon the sore. This was that pad in the straw, the thing that made Moses hang off as he did; however he pretended the people’s incredulity, his own inability, and this and that, neither did he altogether dissemble: but self-love needs not be taught to tell her tale.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the LORD said. See note on Exo 3:7, and compare note on Exo 6:10.
all. Not merely Pharaoh, but all the court faction. are dead. The counterpart to Mat 2:15; Mat 2:20.
thy life = thy soul. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Midian: A country in Arabia Petrea, on the eastern coast of the Red Sea, near Mount Sinai. This place is still called by the Arabs the Land of Midian, or of Jethro. Abulfeda, speaking of Midian, says, “Madyan is a city, in ruins, on the shore of the Red Sea, on the opposite side to Tabuc, from which it is distant about six days’ journey. At Midian may be seen the famous well at which Moses watered the flocks of Shoaib – Jethro. This city was the capital of the tribe of Midian in the days of the Israelites.”
for all: Exo 2:15, Exo 2:23, Mat 2:20
Reciprocal: 1Ki 11:21 – Hadad Act 7:29 – General Heb 11:27 – not fearing
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 4:19-20. The Lord said unto Moses This seems to have been a second vision, whereby God calls him to the present execution of the command given before. The rod of God His shepherds crook, so called, as it was Gods instrument in so many glorious works.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 4:19-20 a J. Moses is Recalled by Yahweh to Egypt.This piece probably originally followed Exo 2:23 a, the narrative of the revelation at the bush having been antedated by the compiler, to dovetail in with Es story. The pl. sons is probably due to the editor, to fit Exo 18:2-4 : in J (Exo 2:24 and Exo 4:25) only one son is mentioned.
Exo 4:20 b E continues Exo 4:17.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
7. Moses’ return to Egypt 4:19-31
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Moses did not return immediately to Egypt when he arrived back in Midian following his encounter with God at Horeb (Exo 4:19). God spoke to him again in Midian and sent him back to Egypt assuring His servant that everyone who had sought his life earlier had died. Compare Abram’s stalling in Haran until God again urged him to press on to the unknown Promised Land.
Exo 4:20 describes what Moses did after God’s full revelation to him in Midian that continues in Exo 4:21-23. In chronological order Exo 4:20 follows Exo 4:23.
God gave Moses a preview of all that would take place in his dealings with Pharaoh (Exo 4:21-23). When God said He would harden Pharaoh’s heart (Exo 4:21), He was not saying that Pharaoh would be unable to choose whether he would release the Israelites. God made Pharaoh’s heart progressively harder as the king chose to disobey God’s will (cf. Lev 26:23-24).
"The hardening of Pharaoh is ascribed to God, not only in the passages just quoted [Exo 14:4; Exo 14:17; Exo 7:3; and Exo 10:1], but also in Exo 9:12; Exo 10:20; Exo 10:27; Exo 11:10; Exo 14:8; that is to say, ten times in all; and that not merely as foreknown by Jehovah, but as caused and effected by Him. In the last five passages it is invariably stated that ’Jehovah hardened . . . Pharaoh’s heart.’ But it is also stated just as often, viz. ten times, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, or made it heavy or firm; e.g., in Exo 7:13; Exo 7:22; Exo 8:15; Exo 9:35; . . . Exo 7:14; . . . Exo 9:7; . . . Exo 8:11; Exo 8:28; Exo 9:34; . . . Exo 13:15. . . .
"According to this, the hardening of Pharaoh was quite as much his own act as the decree of God. But if, in order to determine the precise relation of the divine to the human causality, we look more carefully at the two classes of expressions, we shall find that not only in connection with the first sign, by which Moses and Aaron were to show their credentials as the messengers of Jehovah, sent with the demand that he would let the people of Israel go (Exo 7:13-14), but after the first five penal miracles, the hardening is invariably represented as his own. . . . It is not till after the sixth plague that it is stated that Jehovah made the heart of Pharaoh firm (Exo 9:12). . . . Looked at from this side, the hardening was a fruit of sin, a consequence of self-will, high-mindedness, and pride which flowed from sin, and a continuous and ever increasing abuse of that freedom of the will which is innate in man, and which involves the possibility of obstinate resistance to the word and chastisement of God even until death. . . .
". . . God not only permits a man to harden himself; He also produced obduracy, and suspends this sentence over the impenitent. Not as though God took pleasure in the death of the wicked! No; God desires that the wicked should repent of his evil way and live (Eze 33:11); and He desires this most earnestly, for ’He will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth’ (1Ti 2:4; cf. 2Pe 3:9). As God causes His earthly sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust (Mat 5:45), so He causes His sun of grace to shine upon all sinners, to lead them to life and salvation.
"’The sun, by the force of its heat, moistens the wax and dries the clay, softening the one and hardening the other; and as this produces opposite effects by the same power, so, through the long-suffering of God, which reaches to all, some receive good and others evil, some are softened and others hardened’ (Theodoret).
"It is the curse of sin, that it renders the hard heart harder, and less susceptible to the gracious manifestations of divine love, long-suffering, and patience. In this twofold manner God produces hardness, not only permissive but effective; i.e., not only by giving time and space for the manifestation of human opposition, even to the utmost limits of creaturely freedom, but still more by those continued manifestations of His will which drive the hard heart to such utter obduracy that it is no longer capable of returning, and so giving over the hardened sinner to the judgment of damnation. This is what we find in the case of Pharaoh." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 1:453-456. Johnson, p. 56; Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 255; Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, p. 23; Robert B. Chisholm, "Divine Hardening in the Old Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):411, 429; and Dorian G. Coover Cox, "The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart in Its Literary and Cultural Contexts," Bibliotheca Sacra 163:651 (July-September 2006):292-311, took essentially the same position.]
See Rom 1:24-32 for the New Testament expression of this truth. Even though God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was only the complement of Pharaoh’s hardening his own heart, God revealed only the former action in Exo 4:21. God’s purpose in this revelation was to prepare Moses for the opposition he would face. He also intended to strengthen his faith by obviating any questions that might arise in Moses’ mind concerning God’s omniscience as his conflict with Pharaoh intensified. [Note: F. E. Deist, "Who is to blame: the Pharaoh, Yahweh or circumstance? On human responsibility, and divine ordinance in Exodus 1-14," OTWSA 29(1986):91-110, argued that documents J, D, and P each give a different answer to the question of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.]
"Egyptians believed that when a person died his heart was weighed in the hall of judgment. If one’s heart was ’heavy’ with sin, that person was judged. A stone beetle scarab was placed on the heart of the deceased person to suppress his natural tendency to confess sin which would subject himself to judgment. This ’hardening of the heart’ by the scarab would result in salvation for the deceased.
"However, God reversed this process in Pharaoh’s case. Instead of his heart being suppressed so that he was silent about his sin and thus delivered, his heart became hardened, he confessed his sin (Exo 9:27; Exo 9:34; Exo 10:16-17), and his sinfully heavy heart resulted in judgment. For the Egyptians ’hardening of the heart’ resulted in silence (absence of confession of sin) and therefore salvation. But God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart resulted in acknowledgment of sin and in judgment." [Note: Hannah, pp. 114-15.]
The real question that God’s dealings with Pharaoh raises is, Does man have a free will? Man has limited freedom, not absolute freedom. We have many examples of this fact in analogous relationships. A child has limited freedom under his or her parent. An adult has limited freedom under his or her human government. Likewise individuals have limited freedom under divine government. God is sovereign, but we are responsible for the decisions God allows us to make (cf. Joh 1:12; Joh 3:16; Joh 3:36; Joh 5:24; Joh 6:47; Joh 20:31; Rom 9:14-21; Jer 18:1-6). [Note: See C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 52-53.]
"Childs suggests that the matter of causality in the heart-hardening is a side-track; that those critics, for example, who have seen here a theological dimension of predestination and freewill, have been wrong. I would say, No, they have been right (at least in principle) to sense such a dimension, but wrong to see the question of divine determination in human affairs arising only in connection with Pharaoh’s heart-hardening. For the whole story may be seen in these terms-Moses and the people, as well as Pharaoh, exist and act within a framework of divine ’causality.’ With them, too, the question arises, Are they independent agents? Are they manipulated by God? (Have they freewill? Are they ’pre-destined?’) The story is about freedom; but freedom turns out to involve varieties of servitude.
"Thus Isbell’s observation bears repeating: the story is above all one about masters, especially God. No one in the story entirely escapes God’s control or its repercussions, whether directly or indirectly. Moses who sits removed in Midian finds himself forced by Yahweh into a direct servitude but is nevertheless allowed to develop a measure of freedom. Pharaoh (Egypt) exalts his own mastery and is cast into a total and mortal servitude. The people of Egypt and Israel are buffeted this way and that in varying indirect roles of servitude. . . .
"God himself is depicted as risking insecurity, because that is the price of allowing his servants a dimension of freedom. An exodus story that saw no murmuring, no rebellion (or potential for rebellion) by Moses and by Israel, would indeed be a fairy tale, a piece of soft romance. But to talk of God and ’insecurity’ in the same breath is also to see that the gift of human ’freedom’ (to some if not to others) itself creates external pressures on God which in turn circumscribe his own action. Egypt/Pharaoh must be made an example of, spectacularly, so that Israel, the whole world, may freely come to recognize that Yahweh is indeed master, one who remembers his obligations as well as one who demands ’service’ (labour!). In short, in his relations with humankind, God’s freedom is circumscribed by humankind just as the freedom of humankind is circumscribed by God." [Note: David Gunn, "The ’Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart’: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1-14," Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, pp. 88-89. For a more strongly Calvinistic explanation of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, see G. K. Beale, "An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9," Trinity Journal 5NS:2 (Autumn 1984):129-54. For a helpful discussion of several ways of explaining God’s freedom and our freedom, see Axel D. Steuer, "The Freedom of God and Human Freedom," Scottish Journal of Theology 36:2:163-180.]
Exo 4:22-23 summarize Moses’ future messages to Pharaoh on several different occasions.
Israel was God’s first-born son in the sense that it was the nation among all others on which God had chosen to place His special blessing. It was first in rank and preeminence by virtue of God’s sovereign choice to bless Abraham’s seed.
The essence of the conflict between Pharaoh and Yahweh was the issue of sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to supreme power and authority. Regarding God, it refers to the fact that He has supreme power and authority, more than any other entity. Sovereignty does not specify how one exercises supreme power and authority. Specifically, it does not mean that God exercises His sovereignty by controlling everything that happens directly. Scripture reveals that this is not how He exercises His sovereignty. Rather He allows people some freedom yet maintains supreme power and authority.
Were Egypt’s gods or Israel’s God sovereign? This issue stands out clearly in the following verses.
"The Egyptian state was not a man-made alternative to other forms of political organization [from the Egyptian point of view]. It was god-given, established when the world was created; and it continued to form part of the universal order. In the person of Pharaoh a superhuman being had taken charge of the affairs of man. . . . The monarch then was as old as the world, for the creator himself had assumed kingly office on the day of creation. Pharaoh was his descendant and his successor." [Note: Henri Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion, p. 30.]
Pharaoh would not release Yahweh’s metaphorical son, Israel. Therefore Yahweh would take Pharaoh’s metaphorical son, namely, the Egyptians as a people, and his physical son, thus proving His sovereignty.