Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 4:18
And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which [are] in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.
18. He first asks permission to leave his father-in-law (in whose service he was, Exo 3:1), concealing his real purpose, and requesting only a temporary leave of absence.
my brethren ] his own relations (the term ‘brethren’ including nephews, Gen 13:8; Gen 14:14; Gen 24:27).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
18 20. Moses prepares to return to Egypt.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Exo 4:18
Let me go, I pray thee.
A true recognition of filial duty
I. It consists in a true recognition of parental authority.
1. Moses was animated by honesty.
2. Moses was related by marriage.
3. Moses was obliged by kindness.
II. It is compatible with silence in reference to the inner experiences of our spiritual life and work. Moses only asked the consent of his father-in-law to visit his brethren in Egypt; he did not name the primary object of his journey. This was quite consistent, under the circumstances, with a true recognition of filial duty.
1. Silence is not necessarily cunning.
2. Silence may be discreet.
3. Silence may be self-protective.
Many toils of Christian workers have been brought to nought by the lack of precautionary measures on the part of those who have been entrusted with them.
III. It should awaken kindly and judicious parental consideration and response. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.
1. Sometimes the request should be granted.
2. Always goodwill should be expressed. Go in peace.
3. Supremely should self be forgotten. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
The compulsion of service
This case of Moses reminds us that our best lifework is that on which we enter under a feeling that it is absolutely essential that we should do it. Moses tried in every way to put away from him the office to which God called him. But still it came back upon him. He felt that he must go; and when that irrepressible must shaped itself in his soul, he went, and carried all before him. It is the irrepressible in a man that makes him great. So long as the work he undertakes is performed because he must do something, there is nothing remarkable either about him or about it; but when he enters upon it because it is something that he must do, then prepare yourself for something noble. Is it not just in this that the quality which we call genius peculiarly resides? If a man thinks that he would like to write in verse, or to paint something, or to make a speech, or what not, his work will never be heard of. But if there is in him a song which insists on singing itself out, or a painting which will not let him rest until he has put it on the canvas, or a truth, the utterance of which he cannot hold back, then he is sure to be at length a poet, an artist, or an orator. That was a wise old minister who, on being consulted by a youth who desired to become a preacher of the gospel, said to him, Young man, dont become a minister if you can help it. It is the man who cannot help being a preacher who will be most effective always in the pulpit. The work which we can help doing is not for us. If Moses could have successfully excused himself, he would have been no fit man for the great crusade on which he entered. But it was because, in spite of all his reluctance, there was within him the overmastering sense that God had called him to be Israels deliverer that he was at length so successful. Ah! have we not here the cause of so many failures in moral and religious enterprises? The men who have inaugurated them have done so for personal eclat or pecuniary profit, and not because of this inner compulsion. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Domestic sympathy in duty
Moses tells Jethro of his commission from Jehovah, and asks permission to carry out the Lords will. This request is at once granted. It is most encouraging to be thus cordially seconded by those of our own house in our purpose to serve the Lord, whether in public or private ministry. We also, whether we are called into the public or private service of God, ought to communicate with those of our own household. My advice is always to a young convert, to go at once to those at home, to whom they naturally owe confidence, and tell them what the Lord has done for them, and that He has called them to service. If it is son or daughter, go to mother or father; if it is wife or husband, then to husband or wife. Seek not to keep your conversion, or your consecration to God, a secret from those of your own household. It sometimes happens that one must stand alone in ones house. This is often very hard to do. Once Paul was compelled to stand alone. At my first answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me:. . . notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me. This we can always count on; and no one is alone with whom the Lord stands. I once knew a husband and wife, each of whom, afraid of the other, had sought the Lord in one of our meetings, apart from the other, each being afraid that the other would ridicule. They had both of them been open and scoffing unbelievers. Now both had found the Lord; but each was afraid to confess it to the other, and yet each of them noticed a change in the other. At last the wife summoned courage to tell her husband that she had been so burdened with a sense of her sin, that, having no rest, she had sought the Lord and found Him. To her unspeakable joy the husband caught her in his arms, and confessed the same for himself to her. Let us always first go home and tell our friends how great things the Lord hath done for us, and saved our souls; and then shall we have a free course to serve the Lord. Otherwise our hands will be tied; and we shall be hindered in every way from faithful service. I think there will always be some one at home who will be glad that we have met with the Lord; either for the first time, or in a way that means an entire consecration to Him and His service. And as Jethro said to Moses, so will they say to us: Go in peace. (G. F. Pentecost, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 18. Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren] Moses, having received his commission from God, and directions how to execute it, returned to his father-in-law, and asked permission to visit his family and brethren in Egypt, without giving him any intimation of the great errand on which he was going. His keeping this secret has been attributed to his singular modesty: but however true it might be that Moses was a truly humble and modest man, yet his prudence alone was sufficient to have induced him to observe silence on this subject; for, if once imparted to the family of his father-in-law, the news might have reached Egypt before he could get thither, and a general alarm among the Egyptians would in all probability have been the consequence; as fame would not fail to represent Moses as coming to stir up sedition and rebellion, and the whole nation would have been armed against them. It was therefore essentially necessary that the business should be kept secret.
In the Septuagint and Coptic the following addition is made to this verse: After these many days, the king of Egypt died. This was probably an ancient gloss or side note, which in process of time crept into the text, as it appeared to throw light on the following verse.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He pretends only a visit, and so indeed it was, and that no very long one neither: he knew that he should certainly return to this place, and there meet with his father-in-law. So that he did not deceive him, nor intended to do so though he thought fit to conceal from him the errand upon which God sent him, lest his father or wife should attempt to hinder or discourage him from so difficult and dangerous an enterprise. Moses shows here a rare example, as well of modesty and humility, that such glorious and familiar converse with God, and the high calling to which God had advanced him, did neither make him forget the civility and duty which he owed to his father, nor make him break forth into public and vain-glorious boasting of such a privilege; as also of his piety and prudence, that he avoided all occasions and temptations to disobedience to Gods command.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. Moses . . . returned toJethroBeing in his service, it was right to obtain hisconsent, but Moses evinced piety, humility, and prudence, in notdivulging the special object of his journey.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law,…. With his flock of sheep he kept, Ex 3:1: and said unto him,
let me go, I pray thee, and return to my brethren which are in Egypt; the Israelites, who were so by nation and religion; as Jethro had been kind and beneficent to him, he did not choose to leave him without his knowledge and consent, and especially to take away his wife and children without it:
and see whether they be yet alive; it seems by this that Moses had heard nothing of them during the forty years he lived in Midian, which may be thought strange, since it was not very far from Egypt; and besides the Midianites traded in Egypt, as we learn from Ge 37:28 but this must be ascribed to the providence of God, that so ordered it, that there should be no intercourse between him and his brethren, that so no step might be taken by them for their deliverance until the set time was come. Moses did not acquaint his father-in-law with the principal reason of his request, nor of his chief end in going into Egypt, which it might not be proper to acquaint him with, he being of another nation, though a good man; and lest he should use any arguments to dissuade Moses from going, who now having got clear of his diffidence and distrust, was determined upon it: though some ascribe this to his modesty in not telling Jethro of the glorious and wonderful appearance of God to him, and of the honour he had conferred on him to be the deliverer and governor of the people of Israel:
and Jethro said to Moses, go in peace; he judged his request reasonable, and gave his full consent to it, and wished him health and prosperity in his journey.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Moses Returns in Egypt. | B. C. 1491. |
18 And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace. 19 And the LORD said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life. 20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. 21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, 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.
Here, I. Moses obtains leave of his father-in-law to return into Egypt, v. 18. His father-in-law had been kind to him when he was a stranger, and therefore he would not be so uncivil as to leave his family, nor so unjust as to leave his service, without giving him notice. Note, The honour of being admitted into communion with God, and of being employed for him, does not exempt us from the duties of our relations and callings in this world. Moses said nothing to his father-in-law (for aught that appears) of the glorious manifestation of God to him; such favours we are to be thankful for to God, but not to boast of before men.
II. He receives from God further encouragements and directions in his work. After God had appeared to him in the bush to settle a correspondence, it should seem, he often spoke to him, as there was occasion, with less overwhelming solemnity. And, 1. He assures Moses that the coasts were clear. Whatever new enemies he might make by his undertaking, his old enemies were all dead, all that sought his life, v. 19. Perhaps some secret fear of falling into their hands was at the bottom of Moses’s backwardness to go to Egypt, though he was not willing to own it, but pleaded unworthiness, insufficiency, want of elocution, c. Note, God knows all the temptations his people lie under, and how to arm them against their secret fears, Ps. cxlii. 3. 2. He orders him to do the miracles, not only before the elders of Israel, but before Pharaoh, <i>v. 21. There were some alive perhaps in the court of Pharaoh who remembered Moses when he was the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, and had many a time called him a fool for deserting the honours of that relation; but he is now sent back to court, clad with greater powers than Pharaoh’s daughter could have advanced him to, so that it might appear he was no loser by his choice: this wonder-working rod did more adorn the hand of Moses than the sceptre of Egypt could have done. Note, Those that look with contempt upon worldly honours shall be recompensed with the honour that cometh from God, which is the true honour. 3. That Pharaoh’s obstinacy might be no surprise nor discouragement to him, God tells him before that he would harden his heart. Pharaoh had hardened his own heart against the groans and cries of the oppressed Israelites, and shut up the bowels of his compassion from them; and now God, in a way of righteous judgment, hardens his heart against the conviction of the miracles, and the terror of the plagues. Note, Ministers must expect with many to labour in vain: we must not think it strange if we meet with those who will not be wrought upon by the strongest arguments and fairest reasonings; yet our judgment is with the Lord. 4. Words are put into his mouth with which to address Pharaoh, Exo 4:22; Exo 4:23. God had promised him (v. 12), I will teach thee what thou shalt say; and here he does teach him. (1.) He must deliver his message in the name of the great Jehovah: Thus saith the Lord; this is the first time that preface is used by any man which afterwards is used so frequently by all the prophets: whether Pharaoh will hear, or whether he will forbear, Moses must tell him, Thus saith the Lord. (2.) He must let Pharaoh know Israel’s relation to God, and God’s concern for Israel. Is Israel a servant? is he a home-born slave? Jer. ii. 14. “No, Israel is my son, my firstborn, precious in my sight, honourable, and dear to me, not to be thus insulted and abused.” (3.) He must demand a discharge for them: “Let my son go; not only my servant whom thou hast no right to detain, but my son whose liberty and honour I am very jealous for. It is my son, my son that serves me, and therefore must be spared, must be pleaded for,” Mal. iii. 17. (4.) He must threaten Pharaoh with the death of the first-born of Egypt, in case of a refusal: I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. As men deal with God’s people, let them expect to be themselves dealt with; with the froward he will wrestle.
III. Moses addresses himself to this expedition. When God had assured him (v. 19) that the men were dead who sought his life, immediately it follows (v. 20), he took his wife, and his sons, and set out for Egypt. Note, Though corruption may object much against the services God calls us to, yet grace will get the upper hand, and will be obedient to the heavenly vision.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 18-23:
The sacred text implies that Moses was accepted into the Midianite clan or nation. Thus he must obtain permission from his father-in-law to leave. Moses asked permission to return to Egypt to visit his brethren. He apparently did not reveal the additional purpose of his return, to lead Israel out of Egypt. Jethro granted his request.
Verse 19 implies that Moses was still reluctant to return to Egypt, even after obtaining Jethro’s permission. Perhaps he feared arrest for his crime of murder forty years earlier. But Jehovah assured Moses that there was no need to fear. All who had sought his life were now dead.
Moses took his family with him on the journey to Egypt. He also took with him the “rod” which was to be his badge of authority.
Jehovah once more instructed Moses on his mission. He was to be the instrument through which God would demonstrate His “wonders” or miracles to the Egyptians. In addition to what He had already told Moses of Pharaoh’s reaction, Jehovah revealed the ultimate means by which He would deliver Israel from Egypt: the death of the firstborn. Though Moses was aware of his threat from the beginning, he did not reveal it to Pharaoh until the very last opportunity to heed God’s voice was rejected.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. And Moses went. It is surprising that Moses should have suppressed the vision whereby the mind of his father-in-law might have been most inclined to let him go; for he speaks merely of human feelings, that he desired to revisit his brethren and relations. Yet it must have been disagreeable to his father-in-law to lose his services, and that diligence and industry by which he had largely profited; nor could it have been pleasant to send away his daughter and grandchildren to a foreign country. Whether he was forbidden to do so by God, or whether he was silent from fear and shame, is uncertain; but I incline rather to this supposition, that he dared not speak of his vocation, lest its incredibility should cause him to be suspected of falsehood and vanity. Since, then, it would have been difficult to obtain belief as to his vocation, he preferred making a pretext of his natural affection. But Jethro being persuaded more by divine inspiration than by that excuse, was easily prevailed on; although I make no doubt that for forty years Moses had been giving such proofs of his honesty, that he was exempted from every evil suspicion. We know how much respect is gained by long experience; since, then, Moses had so long manifested his integrity, his father-in-law could have no fears of his levity, or fraud, or deceit. By this example believers learn ever to seek to obtain a good reputation; for there is nothing which so greatly facilitates the transaction of all affairs as the constant course of an upright and innocent life. For, from whence arises so much difficulty in obtaining what each may want from his neighbor? Whence such hinderances, such reproaches on one side and the other, but because, while every one would be believed, no one labors to obtain credit by his integrity? But although Moses had conciliated his father-in-law by his upright and holy life, still he was confirmed in his vocation by the readiness with which his demand was complied with, for the permission was full of courtesy and kindness without any sign of unwillingness or regret.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 4:18
A TRUE RECOGNITION OF FILIAL DUTY
I. It consists in a true recognition of Parental Authority. And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt. Thus we find that Moses acknowledged the authority of his father-in-law, by asking his consent to a journey into Egypt.
1. Moses was animated by honesty. This Midianitish family had been very kind to him, they had given him a home when he was a wanderer; especially had the father of the family been his friend, in prompting the daughters to fetch the man who had protected them, in retaining him under his roof, and in his employment. Hence Moses could not honestly have left Jethro without his consent. He had become his servant, he must therefore acknowledge him as a master. He had become his son, he must therefore recognise him as a father. He had received his hospitality, he must therefore manifest gratitude in return. We have here a pattern worthy the imitation of all young men. Be honest in all your dealings with your parents. They have great claims upon you. Their attention to you in times of peril, the education they have given you, and the happy future they are opening to you, prove them to be your best friends, and therefore you ought in common honesty to recognise their authority over you. Especially should young men recognise the authority of their parents in the matter of leaving home; when the time come for them to quit the abode of their youth, it should be with the knowledge and consent of those who are so interested in them. The young man who leaves home with the blessing and prayer of his father carries a rich treasure with him, more valuable than gold. It will be the happiest remembrance of his after-life. Young men cannot be too open in their conduct with their parents.
2. Moses was related by marriage. He had married the daughter of Jethro, and was therefore under obligation to consult with him in the important movements of his life. Moses was evidently very sensitive to the claims of others. Many would have said that Jethro was only their father-in-law, and that therefore they were under no obligation to tell him their intentions. Marriage introduces a man into new relationships, it gives him new joys and new hopes, and also imposes new duties, which will ever be recognised by the true-hearted. Men cannot better show the worth of their social character than by recognizing the claims and opinions of those who may be distantly related to them. Let young men imitate the example of Moses, and consult the wish of their distant relatives prior to entering upon any great enterprise which may involve the welfare of those committed to their care.
3. Moses was obligated by kindness. As we have seen, Jethro had shewn him great generosity in providing him with a home, at the most destitute moment of his life. This required every return that Moses was capable of making. But Moses might have said that he had worked, that he had kept the flock of Jethro, in return for this kindness, and that this freed him from all obligation. He might have argued that Jethro was old and unacquainted with the requirements of life, and that he was man enough himself to know what was the most likely to enhance his future good, without consultation with anyone else. Many young men of the present day would have reasoned thus. But not so Moses. He was always responsive to kindness. He was a man of meek spirit. He knew that he had won the confidence of Jethro, and that therefore the old man would have no hesitation in allowing his daughter to accompany him on the destined journey. Some young men know that their parents cannot trust them, and this is one great reason why they seldom ask them to, Moses knew that the Divine claims were perfectly consistent with his recognition of the human responsibilities under which he was placed. God never requires a young man to go contrary to the prayerful wishes of a good and pious parent. A man is never too old to ask, and follow the judicious advice of his father.
II. It is compatible with silence in reference to the inner experiences of our spiritual life and work. Moses only asked the consent of his father-in-law to visit his brethren in Egypt; he did not name the primary object of his journey. This was quite consistent under the circumstances, with a true recognition of filial duty.
1. Silence is not necessarily cunning. Moses was not animated by a sinful motive to conceal from Jethro the object of his visit into Egypt, but by a prudential. He had no purpose o serve in acting clandestinely in the matter. He was going do nothing of which he would be ashamed; on the contrary, he was about to undertake a work required by heaven. Had he been actuated by a spirit of treachery, he would probably never have consulted with Jethro at all, but would have taken the matter entirely into his own hands. Cunning is always wicked, but never more so than when found in the family circle. In the home there should be freedom and frankness; one should never attmpt to impose on, or deceive, another. And when there is need of retaining in silence the deeper experiences of the soul, this can be done in perfect integrity, and in harmony with all the duties and requirements of filial love.
3. Silence may be discreet. It was so in the case of Moses. He had been favoured with a heavenly vision of remarkable significance. He had held communion with God. He had been divinely commissioned to undertake the freedom of Israel. If he had communicated all these experiences and facts to Jethro, he might have awakened prejudice, and rendered difficult his departure. Jethro might have derided his vanity. He might have considered him vain and deluded. He might have refused to permit him to go on such an errand. So, Christian workers must be careful how they talk about their soul-experiences; they are sacred, their meaning is not easily comprehended by the outer world, and even our nearest friends and companions are not always prepared to enter sympathetically into the visions, prayers, and toils of our moral life. Hence it is best to retain them within the privacy of our own hearts. These things penetrate deeper than any natural relationship, they enter into a realm where the spiritual and eternal take precedence of the natural and transitory. They are soul-histories; they cannot be uttered even by a child to his parent, and silence in reference to them, so far from being wilful, is discreet and consistent with filial duty.
3. Silence may be self-protective. Moses was about to enter upon a great work. It was an enterprise involving the destinies of empires. Had he communicated this fact to anyone, he might have put obstacles in his own path which would have been difficult to remove. Moses knew that the work with which he was entrusted had claims upon him as well as his father-in-law; he knew also which were the more authoritative. Hence this silence was needful to protect himself from misapprehension, to give his mission the opportunity of exerting its destined influence upon Israel, and to retain definite and influential the vision of heaven within his own soul. Many toils of Christian workers have been brought to naught by the lack of precautionary measures on the part of those who have been entrusted with them.
III. It should awaken kindly and judicious parental consideration and response. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.
1. Sometimes the request should be granted. Jethro made a favourable reply to the request of Moses. He did not unduly assert his parental authority. He recognized the age, the intelligence, the moral character, the wish of Moses, and felt that the request he made was likely to be right and reasonable, especially after so long an absence from his country. Some parents take a delight in an arbitrary assertion of their authority. They put no confidence in the moral rectitude of their children; they imagine evil where there is none; they regard their movements with suspicion, and but seldom grant their requests. This kind of treatment is a fruitful source of disobedience on the part of children who, if they were properly managed, would be most dutiful. Parents should make it easy for their children to consult them in all their movements. They should not keep them in constant awe. They should take a delight in granting their requests, when for their good. By refusing a son permission to leave home you may be intercepting the agency which is to give freedom to a nation. You should recognise the probability that he is acting under a spiritual inspiration unknown to you. Jethro, in allowing Moses to go into Egypt, gave Israel a deliverer. Many a kind and judicious parent has given the world a true hero.
2. Always goodwill should be expressed. Go in peace. Jethro did not manifest any token of disappointment or anger. Moses had been very helpful to him; had looked after his flock, and been useful to him in the way of service. We may presume therefore that Jethro would have been glad to retain him. Moses had also married his daughter, and on this account his departure would be regretted. But Jethro was generous. He rose above every feeling of regret into a full expression of goodwill. Parents cannot deal too generously with their children. A generous parent will make a generous child. Especially should parents express goodwill to their sons when they are about to leave home for the more active engagements of life; a kind word at such a time may be productive of a grand result in the future.
3. Supremely should self be forgotten. Jethro did not allow his own opinion or welfare to stand in the way of the departure of Moses. He forgot himself, sacrificed all his hopes and feelings of parental affection for his daughter, in the wish to grant the request of his son-in-law. Moses became the emancipator of Israel. And parents who are self-forgetful when the interests of their children are concerned may thereby bring them into the line of great usefulness and fame. The self-forgetfulness of the father will shine out and find its reward in the noble character and achievements of the son.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Exo. 4:18.
(14)Parental Respect!It is reported of George Washington that, when quite young, he was anxious to enter upon a seafaring life against his mothers wish. She, however, yielded to his going as a midshipman. When all was in readinesswhen his trunk had been put on boardhe went to bid her good-bye. The tears welled up in her eyes, and stealthily stole down the maternal cheek. Seeing how broken-hearted his mother was, he called to the servant to bring back his box, for he could not go away to break his mothers heart. His mother assured him that since God had promised to bless those who honour parents, He would assuredly bless her son for his filial obedience.
One lampthy mothers loveamid the stars
Shall lift its pure flame changeless, and before
The Throne of God burn through eternity.
Willis.
Exo. 4:18.
(15)Filial Memory!It is only when we have lost our parents that we see how far short we came in filial obedience. An amiable youth was lamenting the death of a most affectionate parent. His companions endeavoured to console him by the reflection that he had always behaved to the deceased with duty. tenderness, and respect. This far from really comforting him only increased his self-reproach: Whilst my father lived, I thought that I was a good son, but now, alas! I recollect with pain many instances of disobedience and neglect How similar were the sentiments of Richard the Lion, when he stood in the church of Fontevraud, and gazed upon the face of his broken-hearted fathers corpse, upon which the broad light of noon was flung.
Exo. 4:18.
(16)Gratitude! He that has nature in him must be grateful
Tis the Creators primary great law,
That links the chain of being to each other,
Joining the greater to the lesser nature,
Tying the weak and strong, the poor and powerful,
Subduing men to brutes, and even brutes to men.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Moses . . . returned to Jethro.Heb., to Jether. When Moses married Zipporah, he was probably adopted into the tribe, of which Reuel, and after him Jethro, was the head. The tribal tie was close, and would make the asking of permission for even a temporary absence the proper, if not even the necessary, course Apart from this, Moses would have had to return, in order to restore the flock, which he was tending, to its owner. (See Exo. 3:1.)
My brethren.Not my nation, for Moses could not doubt that some survived; nor my actual brothers, for he had but one brother; but, my relations, or my family, my kith and kin. Let me go and see whether my relatives survive, or whether they have succumbed to the tyranny of the Pharaoh. It is certain that this was not Moses sole motive, not even his main motive for wishing to return to Egypt; but, as it was among his motives, he was within his right in putting it forward, and omitting to mention others.
Jethro said, Go in peace.Jethros character is altogether one of which kindness and peacefulness are the main elements. If he be identified with Reuel, the pleasing picture drawn in Exo. 2:18-21 will furnish traits towards his portraiture. Even without this, the present passage and the notice in Exodus 18 sufficiently delineate him. He is a sort of second Melchizedek, both priest and king, a worshipper of the true God, and one in whose presence both Moses and Aaron are content to play a secondary part (Exo. 18:9; Exo. 18:12). But he never asserts himself; he is always kind, gentle, acquiescent, helpful. He might easily have made a difficulty at the present point of the narrative, have demurred to the weakening of the tribe by the withdrawal of an important member from it, have positively refused to allow of the departure of Zipporah and her children. But his words are simply Go in peace. He consents, and does not mar the grace of his act by any show of reluctance. He lets Moses take his wife and children. He afterwards receives them back, and protects them (Exo. 18:2); and, finally, when his protection is no more needed, he restores them to their natural guardian, by a spontaneous act, as it would seem.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Moses Leaves Midian For Egypt ( Exo 4:18-20 ).
This is a section of powerful contrasts. On the one hand Jethro is Moses’ tribal leader with acknowledged rights (Exo 4:18 a), on the other Yahweh demands lordship over Moses and his family, represented by the sign of circumcision. On the one hand Pharaoh is threatening Yahweh’s firstborn son, and in return Yahweh threatens Pharaoh’s firstborn son, meanwhile Moses is also seen as under threat because his son has not been circumcised which would be the sign that he was one of God’s chosen people. Equally powerful is the parallel contrast that while those who are in Egypt who threatened Moses’ life are dead, Yahweh will seek to slay Moses, something only averted by the blood of circumcision. We are reminded that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31)
This brings out what serious issues were seen as involved here. The major questions were two, firstly as to whom Moses owed submission, that was why the circumcision of his son was so important. This may suggest that his wife was refusing to allow her son to be circumcised out of loyalty to her own tribe, and was reminding Moses of his tribal obligations. Once she agreed to the circumcision the issue was resolved, which may have been why she was so angry at being thwarted. The second issue was the vital importance to Yahweh of the deliverance of Israel, His son, His firstborn, which not even Moses must be allowed to frustrate. When it came to sons Yahweh’s was of premier importance.
Analysis of the passage:
a Moses requests of Jethro, his tribal leader, the right to visit his family in Egypt (Exo 4:18 a).
b Jethro tells him to ‘go in peace’ (Exo 4:18 b).
c Yahweh tells Moses to return to Egypt because those who sought his life were dead (Exo 4:19).
d Moses takes his wife and sons and sets out to return to the land of Egypt (unaware of the threat that is looming over himself and his son) (Exo 4:20 a).
e Moses takes the staff of God in his hand (Exo 4:20 b).
e Yahweh tells Moses to be sure that he performs before Pharaoh all the wonders which Yahweh has put in his hand, but Yahweh will harden his heart so that he will not let them go (Exo 4:21).
d He is to say to Pharaoh that Israel is His firstborn son, but because Pharaoh will refuse to let his firstborn son go He will slay Pharaoh’s firstborn son (Exo 4:22-23).
c On his way to his lodging Yahweh meets Moses and seeks to kill him (it is in Midian that his life is threatened because Yahweh is angry at his divided loyalties) (Exo 4:24).
b Zipporah circumcises his son and casts the foreskin at his feet saying, ‘Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me, Yahweh then leaves him alone (he can go in peace) (Exo 4:25-26 a).
a She said a bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision (which is a sign which demonstrates that he is bound to Yahweh and not to his tribal leader) (Exo 4:26 b).
Here the parallels are interesting. In ‘a’ Moses requests of Jethro, his tribal leader, the right to visit his family in Egypt, while in the parallel he is rather to be bound to Yahweh through the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, a situation sealed by blood. In ‘b’ Jethro tells him to go in peace, while in the parallel he finds peace from the anger of Yahweh through the shedding of blood and the circumcision of his son. In ‘c’ Yahweh tells Moses to return to Egypt (as Yahweh’s man) because those who sought his life were dead, while in the parallel his life is under threat because Yahweh still lives and is being ignored by him so that he prefers to remain Midian’s man. In ‘d’ Moses takes his wife and sons and sets out to return to the land of Egypt (unaware of the threat that is looming over them because of his son), while in the parallel in coming to Egypt he is to face Pharaoh with the fact that Israel is His firstborn son, and because Pharaoh will refuse to let his firstborn son go He will slay Pharaoh’s firstborn son. In ‘e’ Moses takes the staff of God in his hand, and in the parallel Yahweh tells Moses to be sure that he performs before Pharaoh all the wonders which Yahweh has put in his hand (through the staff of God), but Yahweh will harden his heart so that he will not let them go.
Exo 4:18
‘And Moses went and returned to Yether, his in-law, and said to him, “Let me go, I pray you, and return to my kinsmen (‘brothers’) who are in Egypt and see whether they are still alive.” And Yithro said to Moses, “Go in peace.”
In Gen 49:4
‘yether’ signifies having the pre-eminence. Thus the name Jethro (Yether, Yithro as above) may be Reuel’s title as either tribal leader or priest. It was to him in his official capacity that Moses came for he wished to absent himself from the tribe to see whether his kinsmen were still alive. He did not tell him the real reason for his going. Had he done so his father-in-law might not have been so willing to see him go, and Moses clearly did not consider that a theophany from Yahweh had anything to do with Jethro who was a priest of the god of Midian. Had Jethro known of Yahweh Moses would surely have told him a lot more, for then Yahweh’s command would have been significant to Jethro and of great importance. This counts against Jethro even knowing of Yahweh, except possibly as Moses’ strange personal and family God.
The fact that Moses’ son (possibly his firstborn is in mind, although we might then have expected it to be stated) had not been circumcised might suggest divided loyalties by Moses between obedience to Yahweh and response to his current circumstances, indicating resistance from his wife and possibly his family and tribe with regard to his loyalty to Yahweh and what they saw as a barbarous rite of circumcision. What follows settles once and for all where the loyalty of he and his family must lie.
It is equally possible the Reuel had died and that Jethro his brother-in-law is in mind. Either way the point is that ‘Yether’ (Jethro) was leader of the family tribe. he had to be consulted. Tribal loyalty was seen as extremely important and no tribe liked to be diminished by losing a valuable member. He could not just go off at will. On the other hand family loyalty was seen as equally important, so permission was unlikely to be refused.
Jethro acknowledged his right to visit his kinsfolk and gave consent. ‘Go in peace.’ He was assuring him that there would be no dispute or ill will in the tribe at his departure. Later when the deliverance had taken place Moses would keep Jethro informed of events and Jethro would come to visit him and acknowledge his responsibility to accompany the people he had delivered to Canaan (Exo 18:1-27). Thus Moses did what was fitting towards his tribe.
But Yahweh would only say ‘go in peace’ to Moses once the issue of his loyalties had been settled by the circumcision of his son (possibly his firstborn for each son individually spoken of in this passage is a firstborn).
Exo 4:19
‘And Yahweh said to Moses in Midian, “Go, return to Egypt, for all the men who sought your life are dead.”
Some time had passed since his call, for he had had to bring the sheep back to the tribe and then seek the right time to prepare to visit Egypt, and as we know he was not at all keen on the idea. Besides, haste would not have been looked on as courteous. But then the word came from Yahweh that it was time to depart, both forcefully and yet with comfort. Initially, he is reminded, he will have nothing to fear, for those who remembered his misdeed were no more. Note the stress on ‘in Midian’. Yahweh can speak anywhere.
But in context in the background is another threat of death. Yahweh Himself will threaten him with death because of his failure in loyalty (Exo 4:24).
Exo 4:20
‘And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them on an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand.’
Moses took his family with him and set off. By now he had ‘sons’. His wife and sons seemingly rode on an ass, while he walked with them. ‘He returned to the land of Egypt.’ We would say ‘and he began his journey back to Egypt’, but we have seen this method (of summarising prior to giving the detail) before, in Genesis.
“And Moses took the staff of God in his hand.” He knew that this was the sign of his God-given authority and his one weapon against the wisdom and armies of Egypt. Now it was not just his staff, it was the staff of God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Beginning of Moses’ Public Ministry Exo 4:18-31 records the beginning of Moses’ public ministry towards the children of Israel. Aaron travelled into the wilderness and escorted his brother Moses to Egypt and introduced him to the Jewish elders. There Moses used his rod to perform signs that accompanied Aaron’s message to them, and the people believed. As Moses presented himself to Israel by coming out of the wilderness, he will depart into the wilderness to die in Deu 34:1-8.
We can compare this event of Moses’ presentation to Israel to the presentation of Jesus Christ to the Jews at the beginning of His public ministry. Jesus also came from the wilderness and was water baptised, with the testimony of his cousin John the Baptist, accompanied by a miracle of God speaking audibly from Heaven. In fact, John the Baptist dwelt in the wilderness and presented himself to the Jews from this location.
Exo 4:18 “Let me go, I pray thee” – Comments – Moses, by marriage, had become a son-in-law of Jethro. Thus, Moses entreated him in such a manner of respect.
Exo 4:19 Comments The Lord will make a similar statement to Joseph, telling him to return with Mary and Jesus to the land of Israel (Mat 2:20).
Mat 2:20, “Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.”
Exo 4:20 “and Moses took the rod of God in his hand” Comments – This rod was simply a wooden stick before Moses laid it before the Lord. Now, it has become a mighty instrument that will work signs and wonders, an instrument of judgment upon the nation of Egypt. It will be used to defeat the Amalekites, to part the Red Sea and to bring water out of a rock. It became the mighty rod of God.
Exo 4:24-26 Comments – The Circumcision of Moses’ Son – Circumcision represents the removing of the fleshly, carnal nature of man. Zipporah understood this was the covenant of the God of the Israelites, thought she did not like having to circumcise her own child. She had the wisdom to do what Moses had failed to do. Moses was going to have to walk in the spirit and crucify flesh. Just as Eli had failed to discipline his sons and bring the judgment of God upon him, his sons and the nation of Israel, so had Moses failed to discipline himself and his sons in obeying the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision.
It is interesting to compare the parallel story in The Book of Jubilees (48.2-3) which tells us that it was a demonic angel named Mastema who came against Moses to slay him.
Exo 4:24 Word Study on “the Lord” The Hebrew word “YHWH” ( ) (H3068) is translated “the Lord” throughout the Old Testament
Exo 4:24 Comments – Note that the sin for not being circumcised was to be cut off from the people of Israel (Gen 17:14).
Gen 17:14, “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”
Exo 4:27 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.
Exo 4:27
Exo 4:27 “And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him” – Comments The meeting place was Mount Sinai, to which Moses would bring the children of Israel after their Exodus from Egypt.
Exo 4:30-31 Comments The Purpose of Signs and Wonders – Signs are displayed and then faith follows. Israel received this good report. However, during the wilderness journey, when their circumstances required that they walk by faith, they went by sight, and not by faith.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Moses dismissed by Jethro
v. 18. And Moses went and returned to Jethro, his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. v. 19. And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, v. 20. And Moses took his wife and his sons, v. 21. And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in thine hand. v. 22. And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, even my first-born; v. 23. and I say unto thee, 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 first-born. v. 24. And it came to pass by the way in the inn that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. v. 25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, v. 26. So He let him go. Then she said, A bloody husband,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Exo 4:18-25
If Moses had, as we have supposed, been accepted into the Midianitish nation, he would need permission to withdraw himself from the tribal head. This head was now Jether, or Jethro, Moses’ connexion by marriage, perhaps his brother-in-law, perhaps a less near connexion. 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 Egypt, even though he designed to be accompanied by his wife and sons (Exo 4:20). Scripture gives no indications of the motives which actuated him. Perhaps the Midianites were at this time straitened for want of room. Perhaps the peculiar circumstances of Moses were held to justify his application for leave.
Exo 4:18
My brethren probably means here “my relations” (compare Gen 13:8; Gen 29:12). Moses could scarcely doubt but that some of his countrymen were still living. It would not have been for the interest of the Egyptians to exterminate them. Go in peace means, “you have my leaveI do not oppose your going.”
Exo 4:19
And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return. It would seem that Moses was still reluctant, and was delaying his departure, even after he had obtained Jethro’s leave to go. Perhaps he was making it an excuse to himself for not setting out that if he returned he might still suffer death on account of the offence which had driven him into exile. To remove this last impediment, God assured him that “all the men were dead who had sought his life.”
Exo 4:20
His sons. Gershom, already mentioned (Exo 2:22), and Eliezer (Exo 18:4), who was probably an infant. Set them upon an ass. Literally, “the ass,” i.e. the one ass that belonged to him. The word might best be translated “his ass.” When Moses is said to have “set them upon” the animal, we need not understand “all of them.” Probably Zipporah and her baby rode, while Gershom walked with his father. Though horses were known in Egypt before this, they could not be used in the Sinaitic peninsula, and the employment of an ass by Moses is thoroughly appropriate. Returned. I.e. “set out to return.” Took the rod of God in his hand. This is of course the “rod” of Exo 4:2, which had become “the rod of God” by the miracle of Exo 4:3 and Exo 4:4, and which God had commanded him to take to Egypt (Exo 4:17).
Exo 4:21-23
And the Lord said, etc. Now that Moses had at last given up his own will and entered on the path of obedience, God comforted him with a fresh revelation,, and gave him fresh instructions as to what exactly he was to say to Pharaoh. The statements of Exo 4:21 are not new, being anticipated in Exo 3:19-20; but the directions in Exo 3:22 -23 are wholly new, and point to the greatest of all the miracles wrought in Egyptthe death of the firstborn.
Exo 4:21
All those wonders. The miracles wrought in Egypt are called nipheloth, “marvels,” mophethim, “portents,” and ‘othoth, “signs.” Mophethim, the word here used signifies something out of the ordinary course of nature, and corresponds to the Greek and the Latin portenta. It is a different word from that used in Exo 3:20. In “all these wonders” are included, not only the three signs of Exo 4:3-9, but the whole series of miracles afterwards wrought in Egypt, and glanced at in Exo 3:20. 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” (Rom 1:28); if they resist the Spirit, he “takes his holy Spirit from them” (Psa 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 intendednot 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.
Exo 4:22
Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Israel is my son. This would be addressing Pharaoh in language familiar to him. Each Egyptian monarch of this period was accustomed to style himself, “son of the Sun,” and to claim and expect the constant favour and protection of his divine parent. It was also quite within the range of Egyptian ideas that God should declare himself by word of mouth to his special favourites, and give directions as to their actions. 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” (Deu 14:2). Israel’s sonship is here mentioned for the first time.
Exo 4:23
I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. For the fulfilment of the threat, see Exo 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 (Exo 10:29; Exo 11:4, Exo 11:5). 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 Egypt, he continually received from the Almighty. (See Exo 6:11; Exo 7:9, Exo 7:15 19: Exo 8:1, Exo 8:5, Exo 8:16, Exo 8:20, etc.)
HOMILETICS
Exo 4:19
The fact of having a mission does not release a man from social obligations.
Direct communications with Jehovah, appointment to a great and glorious mission, with the power of working miracles, might have rendered many a man neglectful of ordinary obligations, might have seemed to place him above the necessity of asking anyone’s permission to do as he pleased. But Moses read his duty differently. He had been received among the Midianites with great kindness, had been given a home and a wife, and probably enrolled formally as an adopted member of the tribe or nation. Though Reuel, the head of the tribe at the time of his coming, had ceased to hold that position, having probably died, the tribe had a new head, to whom he was bound, if not by all the obligations which had attached him to Reuel, yet by several very definite and tangible bonds. Jethro was his near relative and his tribal chief; he had perhaps sworn allegiance to him; he had certainly received from him protection, employment, sustenance (Exo 3:1). To have quitted his service without permission, to have left his flock in the Sinaitic valleys, and proceeded straight to Egypt would have been easy, but 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 Egypt-made, that is, a considerable journey in the opposite direction to that which he was about to takein 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” (Mat 3:15). If those with high missions neglect even small social duties, they “give an occasion to the adversary to blaspheme.”
Reticence sometimes a duty. We are not bound in 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.
The reasonable wishes of a subordinate should be granted cheerfully. 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 querulousness. 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 questionsdoes 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 Egypt?” or, “Art thou not afraid to return thither?” He will not pain his 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.
Exo 4:19-23
Obedience brings a blessing.
There must have been something in the hesitation of Moses which caused it not to be wholly displeasing to God. Once he was “angered” (Exo 3:14), but even then not greatly offendedcontent 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. “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” This tender relationship, never before 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.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Exo 4:18-21
The return.
Weeks, perhaps months, intervened between the revelation at the bush and Moses’ actual departure from Midian. Time was given for allowing the first agitation of his spirit to subside, for enabling him to take the just measure of the task entrusted to him, for the final overcoming of his involuntary reluctance. An interval is presupposed in Exo 4:10“Neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant,” and is implied again here. Events were not yet quite ready for his departure. The preparation of the man, and the preparation of events (Exo 4:19) were going on simultaneously. God would have his servant brought, not only to a clear apprehension of his message, but into a state of intelligent and entire sympathy with it, before actually starting him on his journey. The call would come at the proper time.
I. PERMISSION RECEIVED (Exo 4:18). The request to Jethro was couched in simple but courteous terms, and was as courteously responded to. Moses said nothing of the revelations he had received.
1. He had no call to say anything. His message was to the elders of Israel, not to Jethro.
2. It would have been a breach of confidence to have divulged what passed between him and God without permission.
3. It was not advisable to say anything. He would have required to have entered into explanations, and might have encountered unbelief and opposition. If Jethro perceived, as possibly he did, that there was something underlying Moses’ request which he did not care to state, he had the good sense to refrain from prying too curiously into what did not concern him. The parting was courteous and friendly, creditable alike to both.
Observe:
1. There are times when it is prudent to keep one’s own counsel.
2. It is the mark of a wise man that he can keep his own counsel.
3. It is well to be reserved about private religious experience (Gal 1:16, Gal 1:17).
4. It is one’s duty on all occasions to study friendliness and courtesy.
5. It is nearly as high a mark of character not to be too curious in prying into the secrets of others, as it is to be cautious in keeping silence about those entrusted to us.
II. THE WAY CLEARED (Exo 4:19). As suggested above, Moses had probably been instructed to wait a Divine intimation as to the time of his actual departure. In a work so important every step must be taken under direct Divine guidance. Cf. the movements of Mary and Joseph with the child Jesus (Mat 2:1-23.). And the warning was not given till God was able to announce that all the men were dead who had formerly sought his life. This would be a comfort to Moses, and would remove at least one set of fears as to his personal safety. There may have been another reason for delaying to this point. Time had again brought matters to the condition of a tabula rasa. The conflict now to be begun was not to be demeaned by being mixed up with the spites and enmities of a buried past. Observe:
1. How God times events with a view to every class of conditions.
2. How God consults for the safety of his servants.
3. How God’s purposes move with steady step to their accomplishment, while mortals, who thought to hinder them, drop into their graves, and are forgotten.
III. THE JOURNEY ENTERED UPON (Exo 4:20).
1. Moses took with him his wife and two sons. The desire to have them with him was natural, but he afterwards saw reason for sending them back. The work he was engaged in was of a kind not compatible with family entanglements. There are times when a man’s hands need to be absolutely free; when it is his duty not to enter into relationships which would encumber him; or, if these already exist, to make the temporary sacrifice of comfort and affection which the exigencies of his work demand (Mat 8:21, Mat 8:22; 2Ti 2:4).
2. He took with him the rod of God. This was indispensable. By it he was to work signs (Exo 4:17). The rod of the Christian worker is his Bible. Armed with that, he can speak with Divine authority, work miracles in the souls of men and confound the mightiest of his enemies.J.O.
Exo 4:21
Hardening.
God communicates anew with Moses, fortifying his resolution to appear before Pharaoh, putting words into his mouth, and warning him of the effect his message would produce. He was not to fail to do all his wonders before Pharaoh, though the only effect would be to harden the monarch’s heartto confirm him in his resolution not to let the people go.
I. THE WORD OF GOD IS TO BE ADDRESSED TO MEN, WHATEVER RECEPTION IT MAY MEET WITH. It is to be set forth, and the evidence which attests it exhibited, “whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear” (Eze 2:5); and this
1. That God’s will may be made known.
2. That men’s dispositions may be tested.
3. That if men disobey they may be left without excuse.
4. That ulterior purposes may be fulfilled.
For men’s unbelief cannot make the faith of God without effect (Rom 3:3). If men disbelieve and are hardened, God will use even their hardening as the point of attachment for some new link in the chain of his providential developments.
II. GOD INFALLIBLY FOREKNOWS THE EFFECT OF EVERY APPEAL OR MESSAGE HE ADDRESSES TO HIS MORAL CREATURES. He knows those to whom his servants will be “the savour of death unto death,” and those to whom they will be “the savour of life unto life” (2Co 2:16). But the knowledge that his Word will be rejected is not a reason for keeping it back. As respects these foreknown effects, we are not permitted to say either
1. That God wills (i.e. desires) that his Word should harden; or
2. That in any case it hardens by his arbitrarily withholding the grace which would have produced an opposite result. Yet Divine sovereignty is not to be denied in the effects produced by the preaching of the Word, or in God’s dealings with men in mercy and judgment generally. He will be a bold student of Divine things who ventures to assert that by no means known to him could God have subdued the obstinacy even of a Pharaoh. Hearts as stubborn have yielded before now. We cannot solve these anomalies. Enough for us to know that God’s sovereignty, however exercised, is ever righteous, holy, and, could we see all, loving.
III. GOD‘S WORD, WHEN ITS MESSAGE IS RESISTED, HARDENS THE HEART THAT RESISTS IT. The hardening of the heart is here attributed to God, as in other places it is attributed to Pharaoh himself. The latter statement occasions no difficulty. It is the invariable law, and one which is constantly being exemplified, that he who resists grace and truth incurs the penalty of being hardened. That result follows from the constitution of the moral nature. But precisely in this fact lies the explanation of the other mode of statement, that the hardening of the heart is from God. For God is concerned in the results which flow from the operation of his own laws, and takes (providentially) the responsibility of them. We may go even further, and say that God designs that those who resist his truth shall be hardened by it; just as he designs that those who believe and obey it shall be saved. And the stronger way of putting the matter, harsh as it seems, has its own advantages. Resisters of the truth do well to remember that in their attitude of opposition they have to do, not merely with “laws,” reacting to darken the mind and indurate the heart, but with a living God within and behind these laws, lending his solemn sanction to their operations, willing the results which flow from them, and righteously punishing sin by means of them. This explanation, indeed, is not complete. Other phases of the subject come into view later. Meanwhile the preacher of the Gospel is not to be astonished that his word, in many cases, produces hardening effects. This is foreseen by God, and is taken up into his plan. Learn also how a career of iniquity is often punished by the transgressor being brought into circumstances which, merciful in their own operation, yet lead to his greater hardening.J.O.
Exo 4:22, Exo 4:23
Israel a type of sonship.
Consider
1. The condescension of God in the establishing of this relationship. A nation of slaves; in the eyes of the Egyptians little better than a nation of lepers; yet Jehovah says of them, “Israel is my son, my firstborn.” “Behold what manner of love,” etc. (1Jn 3:1).
2. The privileges implied in it. On this cf. Deu 1:31-34; Deu 8:2-6; Deu 32:9-15. Reflect how Israel was led, fed, guided, trained, chastened, delivered from enemies, and conducted to a bountiful inheritance. These privileges have all their counterparts in the experience of the “children of God by faith in Christ Jesus'” (Gal 3:26).
3. The responsibilities it imposed on others. Because Israel was God’s son, his firstborn, Pharaoh was to refrain from oppressing his son, and if he did not he would be smitten in his own firstborn.
(1) As men treat God’s children so will God treat them. He notes, and he will reward, kindnesses done to his sons, and he will avenge their wrongs.
(2) God’s children may safely leave the avenging of their wrongs to God. It is not their work, but his, to avenge them; the rule for them is to avenge not themselves, but rather to give place to wrath; heaping coals of fire on the head of the enemy by returning him good for his evil (Rom 12:19-21).J.O.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
Exo 4:18-23
True faith and its joy.
I. THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH.
1. Note Moses’ swift compliance with God’s command. He tarried no longer: “He went and returned, and said, let me go.” He does not seek advice. He does not even wait for a convenient opportunity of urging his request. We must wait neither upon time nor men. If God has spoken, we must obey.
2. His wise reticence. He said nothing of what he had seen and heard. These experiences are a holy place where the soul meets alone with God. Where this holy place is profaned the soul suffers loss.
II. CONSOLATIONS ABOUND ALONG THE PATHWAY OF OBEDIENT FAITH.
1. Moses receives Jethro’s permission and blessing.
2. Fears are removed (Exo 4:19).
3. He passes on with the consciousness of power: he “took the rod of God in his hand.”
4. He has the assurance of victory. Pharaoh’s heart will be hardened, yet there is one judgment in reserve which will bow that heart to compliance with the will of God (Exo 4:22, Exo 4:23). The cause of God cannot be defeated. As we go on in obedience to God’s commandment our advance is a continuous discovery of God’s goodness. The lions which we saw in the distance are chained, and do not harm us.U.
Exo 4:24-31
The three meetings.
I. THE LORD‘S MEETING WITH MOSES (Exo 4:24-26).
1. Moses’ sin.
(1) Circumcision was the solemnly expressed will of God (Gen 17:9-14).
(2) It was enforced by exclusion from the blessings of God’s covenant.
(3) Preparations had been made for the journey, but the circumcision of Eliezer was not among them.
2. The reason of the omission, weak yielding to the prejudices of his Midianitish wife.
3. His guilt. God looked beyond the sign to that which it signified and partially accomplishedthe claiming of the life for himself and righteousness. Moses’ disobedience was therefore murder by neglect, and life shall answer for life. The guilt of the unfaithful watchmen in Zion (Eze 33:7-9); of parents who never seek by instruction and example and prayer to have their children circumcised with the circumcision of Christ.
4. God will withstand the inconsistent worker. He will permit his work to be done only by the righteous and the faithful. This is seen both in churches and in individuals.
II. THE MEETING OF MOSES AND AARON (Exo 4:27, Exo 4:28).
1. Moses had to proceed alone (Exo 18:2), the type of many who pass to service through loss.
2. God prepares consolation in the desert (Mat 19:27-29).
3. The marvels of God’s providence. He makes their meeting with each other a meeting with himself. “They met at the mount of God.”
4. Human love hallowed by the Divine love”And Moses told Aaron,” etc.
III. THEIR MEETING WITH THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL (Exo 4:29-31). Where Moses dreaded failure he meets success. There is more faith waiting to receive God’s word than we imagine: souls wait round us like the parched land for the showers.U.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Exo 4:19
The unsolicited removal of a source of great anxiety.
God assures Moses that he has no longer any cause to fear on account of the Egyptian slain forty years before. This last piece of information casts a flood of light on all the hesitation, reluctance, and perplexity which Moses has hitherto shown in his intercourse with Jehovah. It might have made a great deal of difference, if he had only known at the beginning that the men were dead who sought his life. Not but that Moses was honest enough in all the pleas he had started in order to escape from this mission and responsibility; but, deep under all other considerations, and very potent, even though he had been ashamed to confess it, lay his fear because of the slain Egyptian. He might even have got as far as the expressing of the fear, if God had not brought him sharply up by the kindling of his anger, and made him feel that of two perils it was wise to choose the lesser. Better run the risk from some Egyptian breathing vengeance than from the visitations of an angry God; and yet, though checked from speaking, he would be saying very earnestly in his heart, “Oh that I only knew myself to be safe in this matter.” Remember the terror with which, after so long a time, Jacob approached his injured brother Esau. Certainly Jacob had the bitter consciousness of wrong-doing to heighten his fears, but Moses would have equally the consciousness of danger. Nor can it be too often impressed upon us, in considering this opening stage of Moses’ acquaintance with God, that while he had a profound impression as to the real and awful Being with whom he had come in contact, the extent of his knowledge was not correspondent to the depth of his feeling. He had come into a real acquaintance with God; but it was at first, of necessity, a very imperfect and blundering one. The defective notions of Moses, with respect to God, find their New Testament parallel in the earth-born and earth-limited questions which the disciples so often addressed to Jesus. Hence, even though Moses has seen so much of God’s power and promptitude in dealing with every difficulty he has raised, he still remains uncertain whether God has taken into account this peril from the slain Egyptian. It is no easy thing to get to a real and operative conviction that God knows even the smallest transaction in the past life of every one of us.Y.
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS
Exo 4:18-31
Facing Egypt.
“And the people believed, and when,” etc. (Exo 4:31). This section of the history may be homiletically treated under three geographical headings, which will keep the historical development prominent, without obscuring the moral and spiritual elements.
I. MIDIAN. From Sinai Moses returned to Midian. Reuel now dead, Jethro, probably his son, becomes priest and sheikh of the tribe. [We take Jethro to have been the brother-in-law of Moses. See ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ additional note on Exo 2:18.] In this part of the story it is of moment to observe the situation of Midianeast, and perhaps also west, of the Elanitic Gulf. Hence travellers from Egypt to Midian, or vice versa, would come on the journey unto “the mount of God.” Moses could not stay long in Midian. There was now pressing on him
1. The original impulse (Exo 2:11-14).
2. The commission of the Burning Bush.
3. The intelligence that it was now safe to go.
[Exo 2:19 furnishes a convenient opportunity for noticing the Old Testament formula, on the correct understanding of which so much depends, in which God is represented to have directly said and done what he may have done only mediately. Here, e.g; did God speak out of the air into the ear of Moses, or was the intelligence brought in the ordinary way, say by caravans across the desert? It is a large subject, but the following points are suggested: “God said,” “God did’ this or that, are to this day formulae with the Arabs. This Oriental habit of the cousins of the Hebrews is the opposite of the Occidental. We suppress the name of God as much as possible; and if constrained to refer to the Divine Being, we allude to him as” Providence” or “Heaven.” The Oriental habit is more direct and truer; for God is in the secondary cause, which fact some amongst ourselves ignore. The Arabian style of to-day was the Hebrew style, and the mode of the Old Testament. In the interpretation of this formula we must be careful not to assume always the direct or supernatural, though perhaps occasionally we shall have no other alternative. Indeed, no doubt that is so.] On the receipt of this news Moses paid fealty to the chief of the tribe which had given him a home for forty years; asked permission to return; obtained it, and set out with “rod,” wife, two sons, and, no doubt, the usual service and attendants of a considerable caravan.
II. THE DESERTON THE ROAD. On the road, which passed through scenes of incomparable grandeur, several incidents of the first importance occurred.
1. A word of Divine encouragement (Exo 2:21-23). Jehovah inspired his servant with courage, warned him that success would not be immediate, and gave him the exact message for Pharaoh. [Whether all this came direct from God, or grew up in the mind of Moses, in the way of meditation, under the guidance of the Spirit, must be left to the decision of each.] But something may be here said on Exo 2:21 : “I will harden,” etc. The objection will occur to every oneHow can God punish men for that which he himself causes or does? This “hardening” may be here considered once for all. The following considerations will have weight:
1. God is often in the Old Testament said to do what he only permits to be done.
2. In this passage of history (Exodus 4-14.) God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart ten times, Pharaoh to harden his own three times; and the fact that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened is stated five times.
3. Generally, until after the fifth plague, Pharaoh hardens his own heart; then, and only then, save in Exo 7:13, God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart.
4. The fact seems to be that at first Pharaoh sinfully hardened his own heart, and then God permissively allowed the process to go on and confirmed it.
5. It must also be borne in mind that the very same gracious influences will either harden or soften, according to the subject. The same sun melts wax and hardens clay. The final responsibility of the hardening lay with Pharaoh. The homiletic applications are obvious; but see a striking poem in Dr. Taylor’s ‘Moses’, by Dr. J. A. Alexander, beginning: “There is a time, we know not when.” Another lesson is obvious, as soon as mentioned: We are not justified in looking for results which God has not promised. The deliverance of Israel was promised and certain, but there was no promise that Pharaoh would voluntarily yield.
2. A deed of Divine rebuke (Exo 7:24 -26). This passage is obscure, difficult, yet full of moral significance: must therefore be put in a true light. The incident Shales itself to our minds thus: Moses came on the journey to a caravanserai, burdened with a grievous memory of duty neglected, of the Divine covenant virtually repudiated (Gen 17:9-14). The younger son had not been circumcised. This neglect was weak; had been simply to please the Midianitish mother. Hence anxiety, contributing with other causes to fever and threatening death”Jehovah met him,” etc. Zipperah was persuaded to perform the rite. The “stone” would be a flint implement, considered more sacred than iron or bronze. To this day flint is used in New Guinea even for shaving the head. The task was performed unwillingly, hence her invective, twice repeated. Then Jehovah released Moses”let him go.” It was now clear that the wife in these matters was out of sympathy with Moses, and so, on the ground of moral incompatibility, was sent back with her children to the tents of Midian (Exo 18:2), and the grand soul went on alone upon his mission. But the lesson:The teachers of obedience must be themselves obedient. The law-giver must himself be marked by obedience to law. There is nothing small or great in questions of fidelity. How could Moses thereafter take a stand for righteousness if not himself above indictment? Some moral defects may be absolutely fatal to moral strength.
3. The meeting of the delivering alliesof Moses and Aaronnot like that of Wellington and Blucher, after the battle, but before the campaign. The following points may be noted:Aaron moved at a Divine intimation. The two met at Sinai. Moses communicated to his brother the revelation and conference connected with the burning bush. Had not told Jethro. With him no blatant speaking of the deepest mysteries of spiritual life.
III. EGYPT. Picture the familiarity of cities, monuments, and scenery, but the unfamiliar faces. No change, yet many changes.
1. The assembling of the elders. Moses, more wise than aforetime, knows that nothing can be done without the sympathy of the people. Can come into contact with them through the elders. This an argument for the organisation of the people.
2. The prominence of Aaron. At once takes his place. Note Moses’ unfamiliarity now with Hebrew and Egyptian, after the lapse of so many years, as well as natural want of eloquence.
3. The result. Great success! Belief! Sensation at the coming down of the delivering God! Every head bowed! Worship! God had said: They will believe”they shall hearken to thy voice.” Moses: “Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken to my voice.” BUT THEY DID. Success even beyond our hopes, and the fulfilments of God beyond all our fears.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Exo 4:18. And Moses went, and returned, &c. Thus commissioned by the Almighty, Moses determines immediately to enter upon his office: and, therefore, without informing Jethro of his main design, as that, perhaps, might have retarded it; he urges his desire to go and see whether his brethren (that is, most probably, not the Israelites in general, but those of his own family) were yet alive: to which Jethro readily consents. Moses in this instance, says Poole, has given us a rare example of piety and prudence, in that he took care to avoid all occasions and temptations to disobedience to the Divine commands; as well as of a singular modesty and humility, in that such glorious and familiar converse with God, and the high commission with which he had honoured him, made him neither forget the civility and duty which he owed to his father, nor break out into any public and vain-glorious ostentation of such a privilege.
Exo 4:19. And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian This is supposed to have been a distinct appearance, different from that mentioned in the preceding chapter: for that was in Horeb, this in Midian; and it is certain, even from this chapter, that after the first grand appearance, the Lord frequently made himself manifest to Moses. There is something very remarkable in the latter words of this verse, which are applied to another, and a greater than Moses; see Mat 2:20 as the departure of Moses, with his wife and children, strongly pictures to us that of Joseph and Mary with the holy child Jesus. When it is said, Exo 4:20 that Moses set them upon an ass, the singular here is put, and must be understood for the plural.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Will not the Reader recollect in this place concerning a greater than Moses? Mat 2:20 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 4:18 And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which [are] in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.
Ver. 18. Whether they be yet alive. ] Which if they be, though in a low condition, both they and I shall see cause to be thankful. Lam 3:39 Ecc 9:4
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Moses and Aaron Announce Gods Purpose to Israel
Exo 4:18-31
So often the keenest tests of a mans fitness for his life-work are furnished by his behavior in his home. It may be that Zipporah had resisted the earlier imposition on her son of the initial rite of the Jewish faith and her proud soul had to yield. No man who has put his hand to Gods plow can take counsel with flesh and blood, or look back. At whatever cost we must set our own house in order, before we can emancipate a nation.
When God designs it, He will contrive for us to meet the man, or men, who are to help us in our life mission. Our paths meet in the Mount of God. When the Alps were bored for the railway track, the work started on either side, and the workers met in the middle. Help is coming to you from unexpected quarters, and will meet you when you need it most.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Jethro: Heb. Jether, Exo 3:1
Let me go: 1Ti 6:1
and see: Gen 45:3, Act 15:36
Go in peace: 1Sa 1:17, Luk 7:50, Act 16:36, In the LXX and Coptic, the following addition is made to this verse: , “After these many days, the king of Egypt died.” This was probably an ancient side-note, which crept into the text, as it appeared to throw light on the next verse.
Reciprocal: Exo 2:18 – General Exo 18:1 – Jethro Jdg 1:16 – Moses’ 1Sa 10:16 – matter 2Ki 5:19 – Go in peace Luk 8:48 – go Act 7:23 – to Act 15:33 – they were
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Section 1. (Exo 4:18-31; Exo 5:1-23; Exo 6:1-30; Exo 7:1-7.)
The covenant of promise the basis of redemption.
1. In the first section, then, our eyes are fixed upon the covenant itself, which, as a covenant of promise, depends for its fulfillment entirely upon the power and faithfulness of Jehovah Himself. Yet man is not thereby released from the responsibility which is ever his. Grace enables and provides for the fulfillment of it, never sets it aside. It is the fullest expression of divine sovereignty, not the abdication of it.
(1) At the outset, we see the almighty hand which is at work here. Moses returns to Jethro, to find him at once ready to accede to his desire to see if his brethren in Egypt are yet alive. Then a word from Jehovah Himself assures him of the removal of the difficulties personal to himself in regard to his return to Egypt: all the men are dead that sought his life. This assurance comes at the right time. He has first to face the difficulties, be master of them morally, and then find how He at whose bidding he goes is really master. Then once more he is informed of the stubbornness of Pharaoh’s heart, in which and through which God works still as sovereign, the evil serving Him as does the good. In all this, Jehovah shows Himself to be still the almighty God of Abraham.
Israel He claims as His son, His first-born. They owe their place among the nations to His adoption of them. They are born, so to speak, of His covenant with their fathers. They had not worked for this; but as it is said of their father Jacob, so is it with them, -“The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.” (Rom 9:11.)
Yet this grace of God to Israel in no wise implies the rejection of other nations, rather the reverse, as the promise to Abraham long before declared, “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” So here, the “first-born” implies other children.
(2) In connection with the covenant with Abraham, the scene in the lodging-place by the way becomes at once and strikingly significant. Circumcision was the sign of this very covenant. (See Gen 17:1-27.) It was the expression of that renunciation of all confidence in the flesh which leaves one to know, with dead Abraham, the power of the Almighty. God insists (as we have seen there) that the token of the covenant shall be in the flesh of all His people; and Moses, like all others, must realize the necessity of this.
(3) Lastly, the people set to their seal: they believe and worship.
2. But not yet are they delivered. On the contrary, the forewarned struggle with Pharaoh is only just beginning. He openly declares that he knows not Jehovah, and that he will not let Israel go. Fresh burdens are laid upon the people, who are refused the straw they have hitherto received for their brick-making, and are bidden gather it for themselves; yet not aught of their task is to be diminished. Unable thus to perform their tasks, and beaten for their nonperformance, the people undergo a complete revulsion of feeling. From their late joy, they pass into a state of murmuring and despair. How often is this the case in the experience of a soul awakening under the gospel to realize the power of sin within him, and his own inability to meet and master it! In this condition, the gospel itself seems but a new torture. The work of Christ being yet unknown, and that we are justified as ungodly -as sinners, not as saints, -the unconquerable hardness of the heart amazes and appalls one. Sin seems to be more than ever master, and our hands busier than ever forging and riveting our own chains. The gospel itself seems to have failed with us. It is only that we ourselves have failed as yet to apprehend the gospel.
3. Once again, then, God makes known to them His name Jehovah, patiently reiterating what He has already said. They were now to know Him by this name. All the opposition, all this obstinate tyranny, was only to destroy absolutely all other dependence than in Himself. This is a necessity, that faith may have its rightful and only object. God, by Himself and acting from Himself, is our salvation. If for the present faith even seems to be gone, this too is needful to make us realize that faith itself is not our dependence, but Christ is. Thus God gives an imperative commandment now to Moses and Aaron to bring the people out of the land of Egypt.
4. And here we are bidden to pause a moment, to see who these are upon whom is laid this burden. Their genealogy is put before us, -plainly, in its meaning as to the history here, theirs alone. The fact that others have place in it does not obscure this, but in reality makes it more apparent. Reuben and Simeon only have a place: those who might seem to have, as the elder sons of Jacob, a claim above Levi to furnish the deliverer of Israel, yet who do not, and who are looked at here only to be passed by. But as God does nothing without the fullest reason for it, so there is reason in this case, not upon the surface, no doubt, but yet to be discovered where there is faith to discern. Certainly, a genealogy at this point should awaken attention. Is it an interruption? Is it a mere bit of archaeology? or what?
First, the sons of Reuben: Reuben we have seen set aside long since from his birthright, and for personal causes. Boiling up as water, impetuous, and unsteady, he should not excel. Here we have not this, but the record of his sons’ names only, four in number: Enoch -“dedicated,” Pallu -“separated,” Hetzron -“enclosed,” and Carmi -“vine-dresser.” It is evident that these names make a harmonious series numerically significant, and, at first sight, one would say, good throughout. Enoch is the name of one who walked with God, and was taken without seeing death to be with God. It was also, however, the name of a son of Cain, and, as here, a first-born son. It is in general no good argument when thus there seems no sign of the presence of evil, except indeed. outside. Self-righteousness may have its dedication and its separation (Pharisee-like) and its inclosure and its cultivation, -nothing is said of positive fruit and these four sons naturally, in their very number, speak of what is worldly and unspiritual, -a thing quite easily linked with much pretension.
Simeon’s sons are six, a still more unfavorable number, as we know. The meaning of their names I do not attempt to interpret, but they end with the ill-omened “Saul,” the half Canaanite. Thus Simeon too is set aside.
Levi is the third son, a number which speaks of resurrection -the power of God manifest when on man’s part all is gone. His ruin is owned, and in Levi’s case we have one who illustrates this: “joined” to Simeon in that display of “cruel” wrath which Jacob denounces, yet taken up now in the sovereign grace of God, working for His glory. Thus also typically this same Levi, “joined,” speaks of the mediatorship of Christ, only fully reached in resurrection. The death He has passed through is the confession of the death under which man lay.
With Levi accordingly the genealogy expands, and the Spirit of God lingers over it, recording the number of years of Levi himself, of Kohath, and of Amram, as well as (later on) of Aaron and Moses at the time of Israel’s deliverance. Who can doubt that there is much to be found here beside mere history? What we have seen may serve to show at least that the principles of the covenant are maintained all through the history, and that this it is a design of the genealogy to bring out.
5. And again, for the third time, God declares that He is Jehovah, and that Israel, and the Egyptians too, shall know it: the very hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, which calls for the judgments soon to sweep over the land, being that which He would use for blessing in this way to any with whom there might be preparedness for it.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Exo 4:18. Moses returned to Jethro Justice and decency required Moses to acquaint his father-in-law with his intention of going into Egypt; but he thought fit to conceal from him the errand upon which God sent him, lest he should endeavour to hinder or discourage him from so difficult and dangerous an enterprise. So that Moses, in this instance, has given us a rare example of piety and prudence, in that he took care to avoid all occasions and temptations to disobedience to the divine commands; as well as of singular modesty and humility, in that such glorious and familiar converse with God, and the high commission with which he had honoured him, neither made him forget the duty he owed to his father-in-law, nor break out into any vain-glorious ostentation of such a privilege.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Moses’ pessimism concerning the welfare of the Israelites comes out in his request that Jethro (Reuel of Exo 2:18; cf. Exo 3:1) let him return to Egypt. Moses apparently concluded, even after his experience at the burning bush, that there was no hope for the Israelites.
This section makes it possible for us to gain great insight into Moses’ feelings about God’s promises to his forefathers and about his own life. Moses had become thoroughly disillusioned. He regarded himself as a failure, the objects of his ministry as hopeless, and God as unfaithful, uncaring, and unable to deliver His people. He had learned his own inability to deliver Israel, but he did not yet believe in God’s ability to do so. Even the miraculous revelation of God at the burning bush and the miracles that God enabled Moses to perform did not convince him of God’s purpose and power.
One supernatural revelation, even one involving miracles, does not usually change convictions that a person has built up over years of experience. We not only need to believe in our own inability to produce supernatural change, as Moses did, but we also need to believe in God’s ability to produce it. Moses had not yet learned the second lesson, which God proceeded to teach him.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
MOSES OBEYS.
Exo 4:18-31.
Moses is now commissioned: he is to go to Egypt, and Aaron is coming thence to meet him. Yet he first returns to Midian, to Jethro, who is both his employer and the head of the family, and prays him to sanction his visit to his own people.
There are duties which no family resistance can possibly cancel, and the direct command of God made it plain that this was one of them. But there are two ways of performing even the most imperative obligation, and religious people have done irreparable mischief before now, by rudeness, disregard to natural feeling and the rights of their fellow-men, under the impression that they showed their allegiance to God by outraging other ties. It is a theory for which no sanction can be found either in Holy Scripture or in common sense.
When he asks permission to visit “his brethren” we cannot say whether he ever had brothers besides Aaron, or uses the word in the same larger national sense as when we read that, forty years before, he went out unto his brethren and saw their burdens. What is to be observed is that he is reticent with respect to his vast expectations and designs.
He does not argue that, because a Divine promise must needs be fulfilled, he need not be discreet, wary and taciturn, any more than St. Paul supposed, because the lives of his shipmates were promised to him, that it mattered nothing whether the sailors remained on board.
The decrees of God have sometimes been used to justify the recklessness of man, but never by His chosen followers. They have worked out their own salvation the more earnestly because God worked in them. And every good cause calls aloud for human energy and wisdom, all the more because its consummation is the will of God, and sooner or later is assured. Moses has unlearned his rashness.
When the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, “Go, return unto Egypt, for all the men are dead which sought thy life,” there is an almost verbal resemblance to the words in which the infant Jesus is recalled from exile. We shall have to consider the typical aspect of the whole narrative, when a convenient stage is reached for pausing to survey it in its completeness. But resemblances like this have been treated with so much scorn, they have been so freely perverted into evidence of the mythical nature of the later story, that some passing allusion appears desirable. We must beware equally of both extremes. The Old Testament is tortured, and genuine prophecies are made no better than coincidences, when coincidences are exalted to all the dignity of express predictions. One can scarcely venture to speak of the death of Herod when Jesus was to return from Egypt, as being deliberately typified in the death of those who sought the life of Moses. But it is quite clear that the words in St. Matthew do intentionally point the reader back to this narrative. For, indeed, under both, there are to be recognised the same principles: that God does not thrust His servants into needless or excessive peril; and that when the life of a tyrant has really become not only a trial but a barrier, it will be removed by the King of kings. God is prudent for His heroes.
Moreover, we must recognise the lofty fitness of what is very visible in the Gospels–the coming to a head in Christ of the various experiences of the people of God; and at the recurrence, in His story, of events already known elsewhere, we need not be disquieted, as if the suspicion of a myth were now become difficult to refute; rather should we recognise the fulness of the supreme life, and its points of contact with all lives, which are but portions of its vast completeness. Who does not feel that in the world’s greatest events a certain harmony and correspondence are as charming as they are in music? There is a sort of counterpoint in history. And to this answering of deep unto deep, this responsiveness of the story of Jesus to all history, our attention is silently beckoned by St. Matthew, when, without asserting any closer link between the incidents, he borrows this phrase so aptly.
A much deeper meaning underlies the profound expression which God now commands Moses to employ; and although it must await consideration at a future time, the progressive education of Moses himself is meantime to be observed. At first he is taught that the Lord is the God of their fathers, in whose descendants He is therefore interested. Then the present Israel is His people, and valued for its own sake. Now he hears, and is bidden to repeat to Pharaoh, the amazing phrase, “Israel is My son, even My firstborn: 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.” Thus it is that infant faith is led from height to height. And assuredly there never was an utterance better fitted than this to prepare human minds, in the fulness of time, for a still clearer revelation of the nearness of God to man, and for the possibility of an absolute union between the Creator and His creature.
It was on his way into Egypt, with his wife and children, that a mysterious interposition forced Zipporah reluctantly and tardily to circumcise her son.
The meaning of this strange episode lies perhaps below the surface, but very near it. Danger in some form, probably that of sickness, pressed Moses hard, and he recognised in it the displeasure of his God. The form of the narrative leads us to suppose that he had no previous consciousness of guilt, and had now to infer the nature of his offence without any explicit announcement, just as we infer it from what follows.
If so, he discerned his transgression when trouble awoke his conscience; and so did his wife Zipporah. Yet her resistance to the circumcision of their younger son was so tenacious, with such difficulty was it overcome by her husband’s peril or by his command, that her tardy performance of the rite was accompanied by an insulting action and a bitter taunt. As she submitted, the Lord “let him go”; but we may perhaps conclude that the grievance continued to rankle, from the repetition of her gibe, “So she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou because of the circumcision.” The words mean, “We are betrothed again in blood,” and might of themselves admit a gentler, and even a tender significance; as if, in the sacrifice of a strong prejudice for her husband’s sake, she felt a revival of “the kindness of her youth, the love of her espousals.” For nothing removes the film from the surface of a true affection, and makes the heart aware how bright it is, so well as a great sacrifice, frankly offered for the sake of love.
But such a rendering is excluded by the action which went with her words, and they must be explained as meaning, This is the kind of husband I have wedded: these are our espousals. With such an utterance she fades almost entirely out of the story: it does not even tell how she drew back to her father; and thenceforth all we know of her is that she rejoined Moses only when the fame of his victory over Amalek had gone abroad.
Their union seems to have been an ill-assorted or at least an unprosperous one. In the tender hour when their firstborn was to be named, the bitter sense of loneliness had continued to be nearer to the heart of Moses than the glad new consciousness of paternity, and he said, “I am a stranger in a strange land.” Different indeed had been the experience of Joseph, who called his “firstborn Manasseh, for God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house” (Gen 41:51). The home-life of Moses had not made him forget that he was an exile. Even the removal of imminent death from her husband could not hush these selfish complaints of Zipporah, not because he was a father of blood to her little one, but because he was a bridegroom of blood to her own shrinking sensibilities. It is Miriam the sister, not Zipporah the wife, who gives lyrical and passionate voice to his triumph, and is mourned by the nation when she dies. Both what we read of her and what we do not read goes far to explain the insignificance of their children in history, and the more startling fact that the grandson of Moses became the venal instrument of the Danites in their schismatic worship (Jdg 18:30, R.V.).
Domestic unhappiness is a palliation, but not a justification, for an unserviceable life. It is a great advantage to come into action with the dew and freshness of affection upon the soul. Yet it is not once nor twice that men have carried the message of God back from the barren desert and the lonely ways of their unhappiness to the not too happy race of man.
Now, who can fail to discern real history in all this? Is it in such a way that myth or legend would have dealt with the wife of the great deliverer? Still less conceivable is it that these should have treated Moses himself as the narrative hitherto has consistently done. At every step he is made to stumble. His first attempt was homicidal, and brought upon him forty years of exile. When the Divine commission came he drew back wilfully, as he had formerly pressed forward unsent. There is not even any suggestion offered us of Stephen’s apology for his violent deed–namely, that he supposed his brethren understood how that God by his hand was giving them deliverance (Act 7:25). There is nothing that resembles the eulogium of the Epistle to the Hebrews upon the faith which glorified his precipitancy, like the rainbow in a torrent, because that rash blow committed him to share the affliction of the people of God, and renounced the rank of a grand son of the Pharaoh (Heb 11:24-25). All this is very natural, if Moses himself be in any degree responsible for the narrative. It is incredible, if the narrative were put together after the Captivity, to claim the sanction of so great a name for a newly forged hierarchical system. Such a theory could scarcely be refuted more completely, if the narrative before us were invented with the deliberate aim to overthrow it.
But in truth the failures of the good and great are written for our admonition, teaching us how inconsistent are even the best of mortals, and how weak the most resolute. Rather than forfeit his own place among the chosen people, Moses had forsaken a palace and become a proscribed fugitive; yet he had neglected to claim for his child its rightful share in the covenant, its recognition among the sons of Abraham. Perhaps procrastination, perhaps domestic opposition, more potent than a king’s wrath to shake his purpose, perhaps the insidious notion that one who had sacrificed so much might be at ease about slight negligences,–some such influence had left the commandment unobserved. And now, when the dream of his life was being realised at last, and he found himself the chosen instrument of God for the rebuke of one nation and the making of another, how pardonable it must have seemed to leave an unpleasant small domestic duty over until a more convenient season! How natural it still seems to merge the petty task in the high vocation, to excuse small lapses in pursuit of lofty aims! But this was the very time when God, hitherto forbearing, took him sternly to task for his neglect, because men who are especially honoured should be more obedient and reverential than their fellows. Let young men who dream of a vast career, and meanwhile indulge themselves in small obliquities, let all who cast out demons in the name of Christ, and yet work iniquity, reflect upon this chosen and long-trained, self-sacrificing and ardent servant of the Lord, whom Jehovah seeks to kill because he wilfully disobeys even a purely ceremonial precept.
Moses was not only religious, but “a man of destiny,” one upon whom vast interests depended. Now, such men have often reckoned themselves exempt from the ordinary laws of conduct.[8]
It is not a light thing, therefore, to find God’s indignant protest against the faintest shadow of a doctrine so insidious and so deadly, set in the forefront of sacred history, at the very point where national concerns and those of religion begin to touch. If our politics are to be kept pure and clean, we must learn to exact a higher fidelity, and not a relaxed morality, from those who propose to sway the destinies of nations.
And now the brothers meet, embrace, and exchange confidences. As Andrew, the first disciple who brought another to Jesus, found first his own brother Simon, so was Aaron the earliest convert to the mission of Moses. And that happened which so often puts our faithlessness to shame. It had seemed very hard to break his strange tidings to the people: it was in fact very easy to address one whose love had not grown cold during their severance, who probably retained faith in the Divine purpose for which the beautiful child of the family had been so strangely preserved, and who had passed through trial and discipline unknown to us in the stern intervening years.
And when they told their marvellous story to the elders of the people, and displayed the signs, they believed; and when they heard that God had visited them in their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.
This was their preparation for the wonders that should follow: it resembled Christ’s appeal, “Believest thou that I am able to do this?” or Peter’s word to the impotent man, “Look on us.”
For the moment the announcement had the desired effect, although too soon the early promise was succeeded by faithlessness and discontent. In this, again, the teaching of the earliest political movement on record is as fresh as if it were a tale of yesterday. The offer of emancipation stirs all hearts; the romance of liberty is beautiful beside the Nile as in the streets of Paris; but the cost has to be gradually learned; the losses displace the gains in the popular attention; the labour, the self-denial and the self-control grow wearisome, and Israel murmurs for the flesh-pots of Egypt, much as the modern revolution reverts to a despotism. It is one thing to admire abstract freedom, but a very different thing to accept the austere conditions of the life of genuine freemen. And surely the same is true of the soul. The gospel gladdens the young convert: he bows his head and worships; but he little dreams of his long discipline, as in the forty desert years, of the solitary places through which his soul must wander, the drought, the Amalekite, the absent leader, and the temptations of the flesh. In mercy, the long future is concealed; it is enough that, like the apostles, we should consent to follow; gradually we shall obtain the courage to which the task may be revealed.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] “I am not an ordinary man,” Napoleon used to say, “and the laws of morals and of custom were never made for me.”–Memoirs of Madame de Rmusat, i. 91.