Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 4:24
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
24. sought to kill him ] ‘A primitive anthropomorphic way of saying that Moses fell dangerously ill’ (McNeile). The reason is commonly supposed to have been his neglect to circumcise his child (Genesis 17) But, as Di. remarks, ‘there is nothing in the narrative to suggest this; and an acquaintance with the command of Genesis 17 is as little pre-supposed by it as by Jos 5:9 ’ (see further below, p. 33).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
24 26. Continuation of v. 20a. On the journey to Egypt, Moses falls dangerously ill; but his wife, Zipporah, divining the cause, saves his life by circumcising his son, and casting his foreskin at Moses’ feet (thereby treating it symbolically as Moses’ foreskin). A remarkable, and evidently antique narrative, noticeable also on account of the strongly anthropomorphic representation of Yahweh (‘met him,’ and ‘sought to kill him’: cf. Gen 2:4 to Gen 3:24, Gen 7:16, Gen 11:5; Gen 11:7: see the writer’s Book of Genesis, pp. xx f., 35 f.).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the inn – Or resting place. See Gen 42:27 note.
Met him, and sought to kill him – Moses was attacked by a sudden and dangerous illness, which he knew was inflicted by God. The word sought to kill implies that the sickness, whatever might be its nature, was one which threatened death had it not been averted by a timely act. Zipporah believed that the illness of Moses was due to his having neglected the duty of an Israelite, and to his not having circumcised his own son; the delay was probably owing to her own not unnatural repugnance to a rite, which though practiced by the Egyptians, was not adopted generally in the East, even by the descendants of Abraham and Keturah. Moses appears to have been utterly prostrate and unable to perform the rite himself.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 4:24-26
Zipporah took a sharp stone.
Neglected duty a hindrance to the performance of religious work
I. Moses had neglected the duty of circumcising his son.
II. That this neglect of duty introduced an experience of pain into his life.
III. That this neglect of duty endangered the performance of his religious work. Many a Christian worker is rendered feeble to-day by the sin of his past life. Let us beware how we imperil the freedom of men, and the work of God, by our own neglect. Freedom from sin is the great essential to the success of Christian work.
IV. That the neglect of this duty was most foolish, as it had after all to be performed. Men will have to face their neglected duties again, if not for performance in this world, yet for judgment in the next. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
The Divine purpose of a strange event
I. Take the fact just as stated (Exo 4:24).
1. The very terms are confessedly startling. The Lord seeking and trying to kill! But His fatherly heart withheld His arm.
2. The character of the sufferer makes it still more remarkable. To cut short such a life as that of Moses–how strange!
3. Considerations of time and circumstances only deepen the wonder. God had just spoken to Moses as a friend, and expressly engaged him for an exceptionally important work.
4. The prominence and emphasis given to the record complicates the mystery. It is God speaking to all generations on things belonging to their peace.
II. Cause and purpose of so strange a dispensation.
1. Moses compliance with Egyptian custom of circumcising only adults.
2. So long as he discarded the national seal or sign of the covenant made with Abraham, he was essentially unfit to take the place of recognized champion and deliverer of Gods people.
3. His position was that of a rebel, determined not to submit to an ordinance acknowledged to be Divine. God would sooner kill Moses than allow him to enter on a work in a state of hardened impenitence.
III. Immediate results. Moses yielded, and God let him go.
1. Though up to that moment there seemed no hope of escape, the instant there was confession on one side, there came forgiveness on the other.
2. Henceforth there is not simply a change, but a marked improvement in his entire spirit and character.
IV. Consequent blessings and blessedness.
1. The disease was instantly arrested.
2. Thereon followed another token for good, to cheer and to strengthen his heart (Exo 4:27-29).
3. In further evidence of complete reconciliation, think of the wonderful and unparalleled success with which the mission was crowned.
conclusion.
1. To such as are in vigorous health, the moral is–boast not thyself of to-morrow.
2. To such as may recently have passed through heavy affliction, it suggests the wisdom of much earnest self-scrutiny.
3. Of the large class of almost Christians, not far from the kingdom of God, it asks with special solemnity Why halt ye between two opinions?
4. To those of us who call ourselves Christians, and profess to be aiming at public usefulness, its unmistakable voice is–They should be clean that bear the vessels of the sanctuary. Sins unforsaken, however secret, or however deplored, are sins unforgiven. (H. Griffith.)
Lessons
1. After greatest encouragements may bitter discoveries be made from God to His servants.
2. In the way of obedience, Gods servants may meet with the sharpest temptations.
3. The place intended for rest by us may be turned into a place of trouble by God. The inn.
4. Jehovah Himself may meet His dearest servants as an adversary.
5. God may seek to kill, when He purposeth not to kill His servants.
6. It is some sad defects in Gods servants that put Him upon such attempts (Exo 4:24). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
The circumcision at the inn
1. That a law, the fitness and utility of which we cannot discover by our natural reason, is more a test of the spirit of obedience than a moral requirement that commends itself to our judgment as good and proper; because our compliance with the latter may be but a compliment to our own intelligence, and not at all an act of deference to the Divine authority. Of what use is circumcision to the child? Or what good can it do to apply a little water to a childs face? Surely, the guilt of neglecting such rites as these, if there be any, must be very small. It is not of small account that ourselves and our children should be in the Church of God, and have, by covenant with God, a part in its rich privileges and blessings. And God can surely appoint His own form of entrance into it, and His own mark of membership in it. To neglect these rites is trampling on Gods love, and spurning His favours; and though He may not now, as in old time, visit our offence with physical disease or other visible inflictions, He will surely not hold us guiltless.
2. Sickness, or danger of death in some form, is here sent as a reminder of a past neglect of duty. Is not this often its office?
3. But it is far better, surely, to forestall such medicinal sufferings by a voluntary revision of our lives, and a voluntary supplying of those things that are wanting, by a remedying of neglects as far as it can be done, a supplying of deficiencies as far as opportunity is given us. (B. A. Hallam, D. D.)
Another meeting with the Lord
I. If we give ourselves to the Lord in consegration, we may be sure that before we get fairly to our work we must repair any of the waste places in our lives that are apparent. And if we have overlooked any, we may expect that the Lord will meet us with a drawn sword, and hold us prisoners to Himself, until we make the crooked thing straight. Every person who has sought to walk in the consecrated way has found out the truth that judgment must begin at the house of God. In other words, if we are to bring other people out of Egyptian bondage, we must show in ourselves that we ourselves are delivered. How can a man bring another up out of the bondage of strong drink, if he is indulging in that drink himself? How can a man or woman lead another out of the Egyptian world of pleasure and self-indulgence, if they are living in pleasure themselves? One has said, If you want to lift a soul out of the pit you must first get a good solid footing out of the pit yourself.
II. There is a still deeper meaning in this transaction. So soon as the rite of circumcision was complied with, in the person of the son of Moses (who, I must think, stands for himself in this case, because it was a denial of the truth on his part to have allowed the rite to lapse in that son, as much so as to have neglected it in his own body), the Lord let him go. So, the Lord let him go, is significant. We are made free, in meeting the Lord and fulfilling His will. It will be seen that the drawn sword was, after all, the sword of life. For in fighting against our uncircumcised flesh the Lord is fighting against the death that is in us. He never slays, but to make alive. And if we accept His judgment against ourselves and die to the flesh, by being crucified with Christ, behold, we live! (G. F. Pentecost, D. D.)
Lessons from the incident at the inn
1. That God takes notice of and is much displeased with the sins of His own people, and that the putting away of their sins is indispensably necessary to the removal of the Divine judgments.
2. That no circumstances of prudence or convenience can ever with propriety be urged as an excuse for neglecting a clearly commanded duty, especially the observance of sacramental ordinances.
3. That he who is to be the interpreter of the law to others ought in all points to be blameless, and in all things conformed to the law himself.
4. That when God has procured the proper respect to His revealed will, the controversy between Him and the offender is at an end; the object of His government being not so much to avenge Himself as to amend the criminal. (G. Bush.)
Results of neglect
There is no need that the man in a skiff amid Niagaras rapids should row toward the cataract; resting on his oars is quite enough to send him over the awful verge. It is the neglected wheel that capsizes the vehicle, and maims for life the passengers. It is the neglected leak that sinks the ship. It is the neglected field that yields briers instead of bread. It is the neglected spark near the magazine whose tremendous explosion sends its hundreds of mangled wretches into eternity. The neglect of an officer to throw up a rocket on a certain night caused the fall of Antwerp, and postponed the deliverance of Holland for twenty or more years. The neglect of a sentinel to give an alarm hindered the fall of Sebastopol, and resulted in the loss of many thousand lives.
He who would lead others into obedience must himself be exemplary
Moses had, perhaps, yielded to the importunities of his Midianitish wife in this matter; she may have been tempted to think that it was a very slight thing after all. But he must learn to know no one but God, when duty is in the ease; and in the very outset of his ministry, he must have it impressed upon his heart that nothing is little which God has thought it important enough to command. There is a temptation to be encountered at the beginning of every enterprise; and according as we meet that, we demonstrate our fitness or unfitness for entering upon the undertaking. When you are starting out on some new and noble work, with aspirations kindled at some flaming bush of Divine revelation to your soul, be not high-minded, but fear. Look for some test to be administered to you just then, and look for it in no great affair, but rather in some such common thing as the getting of your daily bread, or in some such domestic matter as the government of your children; for by these God may be determining your fitness for the work you covet; and if you fail in the trial, there will come no second probation. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Circumcision among the Egyptians
The Egyptians, according to Herodotus, Strabo, and other writers, practised circumcision. This custom, says the former, can be traced both in Egypt and Ethiopia to the remotest antiquity (1. ii. c. 104). At what age it was performed by the Egyptians is uncertain; but it is worthy of remark that the Arabians circumcised their children when they were thirteen years old, because the founder of their nation, Ishmael, was circumcised at that age (Gen 17:23). The Midianites, though descended also from Abraham by Keturah, omitted it, and this explains the reluctance of Zipporah to perform the rite upon her son. To save her husbands life, however, she consented to it, and herself performed the operation, using for the purpose a sharp stone, or knife of flint, which, as Herodotus tells us, was preferred to steel for purposes connected with religion, and especially for making cuttings or incisions in the human person (Herod. 2:86). Specimens of these knives, both broad and narrow, have been found in the tombs at Thebes, where they were used in the preparation and embalming of mummies, and may be seen in collections of Egyptian antiquities. (T. S. Millington.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 24. By the way in the inn] See Clarke on Ge 42:27. The account in this and the following verse is very obscure. Some suppose that the 23d verse is not a part of the message to Pharaoh, but was spoken by the Lord to Moses; and that the whole may be thus paraphrased: “And I have said unto thee, (Moses,) Send forth shallach, my son, (Gershom, by circumcising him,) that he may serve me, (which he cannot do till entered into the covenant by circumcision,) but thou hast refused to send him forth; behold, (therefore,) I will slay thy son, thy first-born. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, (when he was on his journey to Egypt,) that Jehovah met him, and sought (threatened) to kill him (Gershom.) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut away the foreskin of her son, and caused it to touch his feet, (Jehovah’s, who probably appeared in a bodily shape; the Septuagint call him the Angel of the Lord,) and said unto him, A spouse by blood art thou unto me. Then he (Jehovah) ceased from him (Gershom.) Then she said, A spouse by blood art thou unto me, because of this circumcision.” That is, I who am an alien have entered as fully into covenant with thee by doing this act, as my son has on whom this act has been performed.
The meaning of the whole passage seems to be this: – The son of Moses, Gershom or Eliezer, (for it does not appear which,) had not been circumcised, though it would seem that God had ordered the father to do it; but as he had neglected this, therefore Jehovah was about to have slain the child, because not in covenant with him by circumcision, and thus he intended to have punished the disobedience of the father by the natural death of his son. Zipporah, getting acquainted with the nature of the case and the danger to which her first-born was exposed, took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son. By this act the displeasure of the Lord was turned aside, and Zipporah considered herself as now allied to God because of this circumcision. According to the law, (Ge 17:14,) the uncircumcised child was to be cut off from his people, so that there should be no inheritance for that branch of the family in Israel. Moses therefore, for neglecting to circumcise the child, exposed him to this cutting off, and it was but barely prevented by the prompt obedience of Zipporah. As circumcision was the seal of that justification by faith which comes through Christ, Moses by neglecting it gave a very bad example, and God was about to proceed against him with that severity which the law required.
The sharp stone mentioned Ex 4:25 was probably a knife made of flint, for such were anciently used, even where knives of metal might be had, for every kind of operation about the human body, such as embowelling for the purpose of embalming, circumcision, &c. Ancient authors are full of proofs of these facts. See Clarke on Ge 50:2.
It is probable that Zipporah, being alarmed by this circumstance, and fearing worse evils, took the resolution to return to her father’s house with her two sons. See Ex 18:1, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Met him, i.e. appeared to him in some visible shape,
and sought to kill him. Whom? Moses, spoken of and to before. He offered and endeavoured to kill him, either by inflicting some sudden and dangerous disease or stroke upon him, or by showing himself in some threatening posture, possibly as the angel did to Balaam, and afterwards to David, with a drawn sword in his hand, ready to give him a deadly blow. The reason of this severity was not Mosess distrust of God, or delay in his journey, nor the bringing of his wife and children along with him, (which it was convenient for him to carry with him, both that his father might not think he intended to desert them, and for the greater assurance and encouragement of the Israelites, when they saw that he exposed his dearest relations to the same hazards with them all,) but the neglect of circumcising his child, which also the Lord some way or other signified to Moses and Zipporah, as plainly appears,
1. From Zipporahs following fact upon that occasion.
2. From the Lords dismission of Moses upon the circumcision of the child.
3. From the threatening of death, or cutting off, for this sin, Gen 17:14, which, because there was now no magistrate to do it, God himself offers to execute it, as he sometimes saith he would do that in case. And this was a greater Sin in Moses than in another man, and at this time than it had been before, because he understood the will and law of God about it better than any man, and God had lately minded him of that covenant of his with Abraham, &c., whereof circumcision was a seal; the blessings and benefits of which covenant Moses was now going to procure for himself and for his people, whilst he remained under the guilt of grossly neglecting the condition of it. Besides, what could be more absurd than that he should come to be a lawgiver, who lived in a manifest violation of Gods law? or that he should be the chief ruler and instructer of the Israelites, whose duty it was to acquaint them with their duty of circumcising their children, and, as far as he could, to punish the wilful neglect of it, and yet at the same time be guilty of the same sin? or that he should undertake to govern the church of God, that could not well rule his own house? 1Ti 3:5. And this was not only a great sin in itself, but a great scandal to the Israelites, who might by this great example easily be led into the same miscarriage; and moreover might not without colour of probability suspect the call of such a person, and conclude that God would not honour that man who should continue in such a visible contempt of his law. And therefore it is no wonder that God was so angry at Moses for this sin.
Quest. How came Moses to neglect this evident duty?
Answ. From Zipporahs averseness to and dread of that painful and, as she thought, dangerous ordinance of God, which she herself evidently discovers in this place; and the rather because of the experience which she had of it in her eldest son. And as she seems to have been a woman of an eager and passionate temper, so Moses was eminently meek and pliable, and in this matter too indulgent to his wife, especially in her fathers house, and therefore he put it off till a more convenient season, when he might either persuade or overrule her therein; which was a great fault, for God had obliged all the children of Abraham not only to the thing, but to the time also, to do it upon the eighth day, which season Moses had grossly, and for some considerable time, slipped, and so had preferred the pleasing of his wife before his obedience to God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. innHebrew, “ahalting place for the night.”
the Lord met him, and soughtto kill himthat is, he was either overwhelmed with mentaldistress or overtaken by a sudden and dangerous malady. The narrativeis obscure, but the meaning seems to be, that, led during his illnessto a strict self-examination, he was deeply pained and grieved at thethought of having, to please his wife, postponed or neglected thecircumcision of one of his sons, probably the younger. To dishonorthat sign and seal of the covenant was criminal in any Hebrew,peculiarly so in one destined to be the leader and deliverer of theHebrews; and he seems to have felt his sickness as a meritedchastisement for his sinful omission. Concerned for her husband’ssafety, Zipporah overcomes her maternal feelings of aversion to thepainful rite, performs herself, by means of one of the sharp flintswith which that part of the desert abounds, an operation which herhusband, on whom the duty devolved, was unable to do, and havingbrought the bloody evidence, exclaimed in the painful excitement ofher feelings that from love to him she had risked the life of herchild [CALVIN, BULLINGER,ROSENMULLER].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass by the way, in the inn,…. As Moses and his family were travelling in their way to Egypt, at an inn where they stopped for the refreshment of themselves and cattle, or in order to lodge all night: so it was, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him; not the uncircumcised son of Moses, as some think, but Moses himself, who had neglected the circumcision of his son; that from the context, and the fact of Zipporah, after related, seems to be the reason of the divine displeasure, and not his bringing his family with him, supposed to be an hinderance of him in his work, nor of his staying too long at the inn, and not hastening his journey, which are the reasons given by some: and Moses’s neglect of circumcision was not owing to the disuse of it among the Midianites, who being the descendants of Abraham, it is highly probable they retained this rite, and that it was used in Jethro’s family, since Zipporah well understood the nature of it, and how to perform it; and it looks as if her eldest son had been circumcised before, seeing only one was now circumcised by her; but the Midianites perhaps followed the same practice as the Ishmaelites did, who were their neighbours, and the descendants of Abraham also, who deferred it till their children were thirteen years of age; or if this child was a very young one, it might have been put off, because of the journey they were just about to take, and purposing to do it when come into Egypt; but this was resented by the Lord in Moses, who had such knowledge of the law of God; and this displeasure of Jehovah might be signified either by inflicting some disease upon him, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi think, which threatened him with death, or by appearing in a terrible manner, as the angel of the Lord did to Balaam, with a drawn sword in his hand.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Circumcision of the Son of Moses. | B. C. 1491. |
24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. 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. 28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him. 29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel: 30 And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. 31 And the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.
Moses is here going to Egypt, and we are told,
I. How God met him in anger, v. 24-26. This is a very difficult passage of story; much has been written, and excellently written, to make it intelligible; we will try to make it improving. Here is,
1. The sin of Moses, which was neglecting to circumcise his son. This was probably the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, while Moses was too indulgent of her. Note, (1.) We have need to watch carefully over our own hearts, lest fondness for any relation prevail above our love to God, and take us off from our duty to him. It is charged upon Eli that he honoured his sons more than God (1 Sam. ii. 29); and see Matt. x. 37. (2.) Even good men are apt to cool in their zeal for God and duty when they have long been deprived of the society of the faithful: solitude has its advantages, but they seldom counterbalance the loss of Christian communion.
2. God’s displeasure against him. He met him, and, probably by a sword in an angel’s hand, sought to kill him. This was a great change; very lately God was conversing with him, and lodging a trust in him, as a friend; and now he is coming forth against him as an enemy. Note, (1.) Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment, and particularly the contempt and neglect of the seals of the covenant; for it is a sign that we undervalue the promises of the covenant, and are displeased with the conditions of it. He that has made a bargain, and is not willing to seal and ratify it, one may justly suspect, neither likes it nor designs to stand to it. (2.) God takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sins of his own people. If they neglect their duty, let them expect to hear of it by their consciences, and perhaps to feel from it by cross providences: for this cause many are sick and weak, as some think Moses was here.
3. The speedy performance of the duty for the neglect of which God had now a controversy with him. His son must be circumcised; Moses is unable to circumcise him; therefore, in this case of necessity, Zipporah does it, whether with passionate words (expressing her dislike of the ordinance itself, or at least the administration of it to so young a child, and in a journey), as to me it seems, or with proper words–solemnly expressing the espousal of the child to God by the covenant of circumcision (as some read it) or her thankfulness to God for sparing her husband, giving him a new life, and thereby giving her, as it were, a new marriage to him, upon her circumcising her son (as others read it)–I cannot determine: but we learn, (1.) That when God discovers to us what is amiss in our lives we must give all diligence to amend it speedily, and particularly return to the duties we have neglected. (2.) The putting away of our sins is indispensably necessary to the removal of God’s judgements. This is the voice of every rod, it calls to us to return to him that smites us.
4. The release of Moses thereupon: So he let him go; the distemper went off, the destroying angel withdrew, and all was well: only Zipporah cannot forget the fright she was in, but will unreasonably call Moses a bloody husband, because he obliged her to circumcise the child; and, upon this occasion (it is probable), he sent them back to his father-in-law, that they might not create him any further uneasiness. Note, (1.) When we return to God in a way of duty he will return to us in a way of mercy; take away the cause, and the effect will cease. (2.) We must resolve to bear it patiently, if our zeal for God and his institutions be misinterpreted and discouraged by some that should understand themselves, and us, and their duty, better, as David’s zeal was misinterpreted by Michal; but if this be to be vile, if this be to be bloody, we must be yet more so. (3.) When we have any special service to do for God we should remove as far from us as we can that which is likely to be our hindrance. Let the dead bury their dead, but follow thou me.
II. How Aaron met him in love, Exo 4:27; Exo 4:28. 1. God sent Aaron to meet him, and directed him where to find him, in the wilderness that lay towards Midian. Note, The providence of God is to be acknowledged in the comfortable meeting of relations and friends. 2. Aaron made so much haste, in obedience to his God, and in love to his brother, that he met him in the mount of God, the place where God had met with him. 3. They embraced one another with mutual endearments. The more they saw of God’s immediate direction in bringing them together the more pleasant their interview was: they kissed, not only in token of brotherly affection, and in remembrance of ancient acquaintance, but as a pledge of their hearty concurrence in the work to which they were jointly called. 4. Moses informed his brother of the commission he had received, with all the instructions and credentials affixed to it, v. 28. Note, What we know of God we should communicate for the benefit of others; and those that are fellow-servants to God in the same work should use a mutual freedom, and endeavour rightly and fully to understand one another.
III. How the elders of Israel met him in faith and obedience. When Moses and Aaron first opened their commission in Egypt, said what they were ordered to say, and, to confirm it, did what they were ordered to do, they met with a better reception than they promised themselves, v. 29-31. 1. The Israelites gave credit to them: The people believed, as God had foretold (ch. iii. 18), knowing that no man could do those works that they did, unless God were with him. They gave glory to God: They bowed their heads and worshipped, therein expressing not only their humble thankfulness to God, who had raised them up and sent them a deliverer, but also their cheerful readiness to observe orders, and pursue the methods of their deliverance.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 24-26:
The text implies that this event concerned Moses’ second son Eliezer. Only one son is mentioned here. This implies that Gershon, the eldest son, had already been circumcised; Eliezer, the younger, had not. The significance: he who was to be Israel’s leader must himself be obedient to God’s mandate. And God had long ago commanded all Israel to be circumcised as a token of the Abrahamic Covenant. The sacred text implies that Zipporah was opposed to this rite, for some reason, and Moses weakly gave in to her opposition.
The family began the journey to Egypt. On the way, Moses was seized with a life-threatening illness, the nature of which is unknown. Zipporah was made to realize that the reason for this seizure was disobedience to the Divine mandate requiring circumcision of Israel’s males. Using a sharp stone, she performed this rite upon her son, then threw the bloody foreskin at Moses’ feet with the reproach that Moses was a “bridegroom of blood.”
This act of obedience delivered Moses from the threat of death.
The omission of Zipporah and the two sons from the narrative hereafter implies that Moses sent them back to Jethro’s house, to remain until he would return to Sinai as Israel’s leader (see Ex 18:1-6).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. And it came to pass by the way. The expression, “the Lord met him,” is here used in a bad sense, for an adverse meeting, or hostile encounter; as though Moses should say that the hand of the Lord was against him to interrupt his journey. In what form He appeared we know not, except that the words pretty plainly imply that Moses was assured of His anger, so as to be aware that his death was near. For had he not been instructed by revelation or by an angel, it would not have at all profited him to be shewn the impending danger. Nevertheless the cause is not expressed for which he perceived that God was so angry with him; except that we may gather it from what follows. For why should Zipporah have taken a sharp stone or knife and circumcised her son, had she not known that God was offended at his uncircumcision? Certain Rabbins, then, are unwise in their conjecture, that Moses had provoked God’s vengeance on this occasion against himself, because he took his wife and children with him as being a useless charge, which would be likely to encumber him. They pronounce also, too boldly, on the nature of his scourge, viz., that he was afflicted by a severe disease, which endangered his life. Be it sufficient for us to know that he was terrified by the approach of certain destruction, and that, at the same time, the cause of his affliction was shewn him, so that he hastened to seek for a remedy. For, as we have just said, it would never have otherwise occurred to himself or his wife to circumcise the child to appease God’s wrath; and it will appear a little further on, that God was, as it were, propitiated by this offering, since he withdrew his hand, and took away the tokens of his wrath. I therefore unhesitatingly conclude, that vengeance was declared against Moses for his negligence, which was connected with still heavier sins; for he had not omitted his son’s circumcision from forgetfulness, or ignorance, or carelessness only, but because he was aware that it was disagreeable either to his wife or to his father-in-law. Therefore, lest. his wife should quarrel with him, or his father-in-law trouble him, he preferred to gratify them than to give occasion for divisions, or enmity, or disturbance. In the meantime, however, for the sake of the favour of men he neglected to obey God. This false dealing was no light offense, since nothing is more intolerable than to defraud God of his due obedience, in order to please men. There was a mixture too of distrust and ingratitude in it; for, if the favour of God had had its due weight, he would have been withholden by no fear from this pious duty. Let us then learn from hence to use reverently the sacraments, which are the seals of God’s grace, lest he should severely avenge our despisal of them; and at the same time we should remember that the external profession of piety, and the worship of God is a sacrifice so pleasant to God, that he will not allow us to omit the care of diligently testifying it as if it were a matter of small importance. Not that he cares for the ceremonies themselves, but because he would have honor paid to the pledges of his grace, in proportion to the benefit which is received from them. On this account Paul bears witness, that a pestilence raged among the Corinthians when the Lord’s supper was profaned, (1Co 11:30😉 because it was an act of impiety that so precious a treasure should be lightly esteemed. But it is worthy of observation, that whereas Moses had two sons with him, mention is here only made of one; from whence is deduced the probable conjecture that one of the two was circumcised. (61) Some think that Eliezer, the eldest, was not so, because Moses had not dared to confess his religion so soon, and to awaken hatred on account of it. But I should rather imagine that when, in regard to one he had experienced the hostility of his family, he omitted it in the case of the second, to avoid the anger of his wife or his father-in-law; for if, in the lapse of time, he had attained more courage, he would not have hesitated to correct the former omission; but, worn out by domestic quarrels, he at last departed from his duty. By this example we are warned that we have daily need of God’s help to support our strength, lest our courage should fail us, and our zeal should gradually grow cold or luke-warm; for Satan is constantly devising many temptations, by which he may either destroy or lessen our diligence. Therefore, whosoever desires to approve himself to God in the whole course of his life, must prepare the armor and the strength for enduring this contest; for if Moses was deficient in perseverance, we shall be equally, or even more liable to the same failure, unless the Lord uphold us by his Spirit.
(61) The sense demands this translation, and the French Version confirms it; though the name is there omitted. As I presume there is no reason to doubt that Eliezer was the youngest, (compare Exo 18:3, with 1Ch 23:15,) an accidental substitution of one name for the other must have probably been made.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Exo. 4:25. A bloody husband.] An unfortunate rendering, bearing an opprobrious tone foreign to the Hebrew which is more exactly (with Benisch, Keil. Young, and others), A bridegroom of blood, or blood-bridegroom, art thou to me. Coupling the expressive Hebrew plural bloods with the circumstances of the case, we might perhaps render the original, A spouse by bloody rites art thou to me. As Kurtz well puts it: Moses had been as good as taken from her by the deadly attack which had been made upon him. She purchased his life by the blood of her son; she received him back, as it were, from the dead, and married him anew; he was, in fact, a bridegroom of blood to her. And thus the expression, while very naturally showing a mothers instinctive repugnance to a painful rite, is mainly charged with the warm and tender emotion of revived nuptial love. Moses himself ought to have performed the ceremony before. He had failedvery possibly out of undue regard to the Midianitish aversion of his beloved Zipporah. No longer can such Gentile laxity be allowed: Israels leader must die to all neglect of the holy Abrahamic covenant. Hence this arrest on the waythis fiery ordeal. How natural it all seems, and how well it all ends. Moses is purified, and in a manner new born for his mission. His son is consecrated to Jehovah. His Gentile wife is taught a valuable lesson, becomes more fitted for her noble husband than before, is drawn to him with a deeper and purer love, and yet is reconciled to a most prudent return for a time to her fathers house. She shall have her reward: a little while and she shall be honourably brought back to find, in the lone fugitive of her first love, the acknowleged leader of a ransomed nation (Exodus 18). It is not the child that is the bridegroom. It may be true, as Aben Ezra says, that It is customary for women to call a son when he is circumcised, bridegroomthe custom itself may have sprung from a misunderstanding of this very passage; but surely it is very forced to attribute such an application of these words to Zipporah. That would involve too sudden a rebound on her part from the feeling of repugnance to that of an almost mystical admiration. Besides, the words to me are fatal to such an exposition: they decisively determine the exclamation to the winning back of Moses to herself, rather than to the giving up of the child to Jehovah.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Exo. 4:24-26
NEGLECTED DUTY A HINDRANCE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF RELIGIOUS WORK
I. Moses had neglected the duty of circumcising his son. It was divinely required of the Israelite that he should circumcise all his sons, and this Moses had neglected to do up to this time. Probably his wife was averse to a rite so bloody, and while living in her country and at her home, he yields the matter in deference to her wishes. But the claims of duty are not so easily dismissed. They are Divine and therefore imperative. If neglected they will follow a man through life and present themselves to him under every variety of circumstances, often with appalling effect and unhappy result. Service always finds out the weak point of our character and conduct, therefore if we would be ready for the work of God we must see to it that we are not guilty of neglected duty. One duty unperformed may nearly ruin us. We must never allow domestic relationship to hinder the performance of a Divine command; the wife that hinders her husband in the performance of religious duty is endangering his life, and her own comfort and safety. The day of retribution will come, and perhaps when it will be the least welcome. The Divine claims are supreme, and in their performance we find our truest safety and comfort.
II. That this neglect of duty introduced an experience of pain into his life. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. This does not mean that Moses and his family came to a house or building in which they could abide, but simply indicates a favourable place for halting and remaining for the night, perhaps under a tent, or in the open air. But here he was destined to pass through a very painful experience, which would probably make a lasting impression upon him and his wife. Some writers suppose that he was nearly slain by an angel; others that he was smitten with a terrible disease which nearly caused his death. However, all this came upon him as the penalty of neglected duty, and that in the presence of his family, who would see that the anger of God rested upon them. We all know the power of neglected duty to introduce painful experience into our lives, which put out all our lights of hope, and fill our souls with an inpenetrable gloom, indicative of Divine wrath and judgment. The bitterest moments of our history have been caused by a neglect of the commands of God. If we want a happy, peaceful life, we must perform every duty that presents itself gladly and at once A good conscience is a continual joy.
III. That this neglect of duty endangered the performance of his religious work. Many men have endangered the great religious enterprises of the world by their past neglect of an apparently trivial duty. The work of God requires that he who is called to it should be of pure soul, enabled to rebuke sin without rebuking himself. Unless able to do this, his mission will be vain. Many a Christian worker is rendered feeble to-day by the sin of his past life. Let us beware how we imperil the freedom of men and the work of God by our own neglect. Freedom from sin is the great essential to the success of Christian work.
IV. That the neglect of this duty was most foolish, as it had after all to be performed. And Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son. God had prepared Moses for his work in Egypt as far as he could. He had given him a vision, had conversed with him about the perplexities of his work, and had empowered him to work miracles: but God will not by a miracle overcome the defect arising from neglected duty. This must be removed by a moral method. As a rule, God does not work miracles to rid men of their sins; yet He does sometimes place man in such a position that a vivid impression of sin is made upon his mind, so that he must either perform the neglected duty, or die. Men will have to face their neglected duties again, if not for performance in this world, yet for judgment in the next.
THE PREPARATORY EXPERIENCES OF SERVICE
I. The experiences preparatory to Service are solemn. This eventful circumstance in the inn is connected with everything that can invest it with solemnity. Moses is prepared for his work. There is only one duty that requires doing. Then he can go to Pharaoh and demand Israels freedom. Will he circumcise his son? Will he make amends for the past? His future position, character, work, and relation to mankind, all depend upon the issue of this event, designed to prepare him for the future. The experiences in the inn are solemn.
IV. The experiences preparatory to Service are painful. These experiences are very intense. They penetrate our inmost heart. They reach wherever sin is to be found, that it may be removed, that it may not impede our destined toil. Even we who have to work upon the lower planes of moral service know somewhat of the deep soul-anguish occasioned by the conflict prior to our entrance upon it.
III. The experience preparatory to Service are instructive. This event in the inn would teach Moses the wickedness and folly of neglecting duty, no matter what excuse might appear for so doing. It would show him that God is cognizant of all the moralities of life; and probably he would argue from his own case to that of Pharaoh, and feel that the claim of God would be equally imperative upon him. We have sometimes learned more while waiting anxiously on the threshold of service than we have learned during years before.
IV. The experiences preparatory to Service are varied. The joy of the vision, the inspiration of the miracles, and the arrest in the inn. These experiences relate to man in every department of his life and service.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Exo. 4:24. After great encouragements many bitter discoveries are made by God to his servants.
In the way of obedience Gods servants may meet with the sharpest trials.
The place intended for rest by us may be turned into a place of trouble by God.
Jehovah may sometimes meet His dearest servants as an adversary.
It is a sad defect in Gods servants that puts Him to the necessity of calling them to pass through such painful experiences.
Exo. 4:25. When God threatens death to His servants, He sometimes allows means of escape.
It is the duty of the wife to save her husband from perishing at the hand of God.
God bears long with the sinful neglects of His people, but not with approval.
It is dangerous to neglect an initial sacrament ordained by God; it is safe to observe it.
Exo. 4:26. Deliverance is very near at hand to the obedience of Gods servants.
God ceaseth from plaguing when men cease from sinning.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(24) In the inn.There would not be any inn, as we understand the word, in the Sinaitic peninsula. Probably there would not even be a caravanserai. Nothing more is meant by mlon than a recognised resting-place.
The Lord met him.The LXX. have , an angel of the Lord; and so the Targum of Onkelos and the Arabic versions. But the existing Hebrew text is probably correct. God met Moses, i.e., visited him with a sharp attack of illness, which threatened to be fatal. Both he and his wife seem at once to have concluded that the visitation was a punishment, on account of their having neglected to circumcise their new-born son. Perhaps Moses had an intimation from God to that effect.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24-26. It came to pass in the inn An incident which transpired at some well-known halting-place on the road ( the lodging-place) is so briefly related as to have occasioned much doubt and perplexity to all interpreters . It is most probably to be understood thus: Zipporah, the Midianitess, although she loved her husband, yet did not wholly sympathise with his great work, nor enter as she should into Jehovah’s covenant . At least through her influence Moses had not given their youngest son the covenant sign, and Eliezer was yet uncircumcised . But it was now needful that Moses should be most impressively taught the necessity of himself keeping the ordinances which he was about to teach to others, and this is one of the striking incidents in his spiritual education .
Sought to kill him Death was the penalty for neglecting the seal of the covenant. Gen 17:14. As Moses advanced towards Egypt, Jehovah barred his way, as at a similar crisis in the history of Jacob he had crossed his path at Peniel, and would not allow him to go forward till, after his famous wrestling, he consecrated himself to the God of Israel. In some way, we are not told how, death stood in his path, and Zipporah recognised his mortal danger as a consequence of his neglect and her opposition.
Cut off the foreskin She herself circumcised the child, and threw the bloody token petulantly at Moses’s feet, calling him a husband of bloods, (text, a bloody husband,) in angry allusion to the bloody rite.
Then Jehovah released Moses from his danger, ( so he let him go,) and Zipporah, regarding him as wedded to her afresh, that is, redeemed from death, and made thus her husband anew, calls him with fresh emphasis a husband of bloods because of the circumcision.
Zipporah uses a stone knife, such as seems generally to have been then employed for this rite as may be seen in Jos 5:2, margin although metallic tools had been in use for ages among these Shemitic peoples . But in this rite, as in the Egyptian process of embalming, ( Herodotus, 2: 86,) ancient custom seems to have kept in use the more primitive tool . Zipporah seems now, or soon after, to have returned to her father’s house in Midian, for there we find her with the children when Moses returns to Horeb at the head of Israel .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
EXPOSITION
Exo 4:24-26
The transition is abrupt from the promise of triumph over Pharaoh to the threat of instant death. But we must bear in mind that some days may have elapsed between the two, and that the sin which provoked the menace was probably not committed at the date of the promise. The narrative of Exo 4:24-26 is obscure from its brevity; but the most probable explanation of the circumstances is, that Zipporah had been delivered of her second son, Eliezer, some few days before she set out on the journey to Egypt. Childbirth, it must be remembered, in the East does not incapacitate a person from exertion for more than a day or two. On the journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived, and his circumcision ought to have taken place; but Zipporah had a repugnance to the rite, and deferred it, Moses weakly consenting to the illegality. At the close of the eighth day, when Moses went to rest for the night, he was seized with a sudden and dangerous illness, which he regarded, and rightly regarded, as a God-inflicted punishment, sent to chastise his sin in breaking the Divine command (Gen 17:10-12). Zipporah understood the matter in the same way; and, as her husband was too ill to perform the rite, she herself with her own hand cut off her boy’s foreskin, and, still indignant at what she had been forced to do, east it at her husband’s feet, with the reproach”Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.” The rite once performed, however reluctantly, God remitted his anger, and. allowed Moses to recover his health, and pursue his journey.
Exo 4:24
It came to pass by the way in the inn. “Inns,” in our sense of the word, were unknown in the East for many ages after the time of Moses, and are still of very rare occurrence. Khans or caravanserais take their place. These are unfurnished buildings, open to all travellers, who thus obtain shelter gratis? but must provide themselves with food, bedding, and all other necessaries. It is questioned, however, if even such a place as this is here meant. Probably, the malon of Moses’ time was a mere recognised halting-place, in the vicinity of a well, at which travellers were accustomed to pass the night. The Lord met him and sought to kill him. A sudden seizure, followed by a dangerous illness, is generally thought to he intended (Knobel, Kalisch, Rosenmuller, Canon Cook); but the words seem more appropriate to a miraculous appearance, like that of the angel to Balaam (Num 22:31). Still, it is quite possible that nothing more than an illness is meant.
Exo 4:25
Zipporah took a sharp stone. Literally “a stone.” Stone knives were commonly used in Egypt for making the incisions necessary when bodies were embalmed, and were regarded as purer than iron or bronze ones. Joshua ordered the preparation of stone knives for the circumcision of those born in the wilderness (Jos 5:2); and the Jews seem to have used stone for circumcision for many ages, though before the compilation of the Talmud they had changed their practice. Cast it at his feet. Not, certainly, the child’s feet, but her husband’s, to whom at the same moment she addresses herself. A bloody husband. Literally, “a bridegroom of blood.” The words are clearly a reproach; and the gist of the reproach seems to be that Moses was a husband who cost her dear, causing the blood of her sons to be shed in order to keep up a national usage which she regarded as barbarous.
Exo 4:26
So he let him go. i.e. “God let Moses go”allowed him to escape death, accepted Zipporah’s tardy act as a removal of the cause of offence, and gave her husband back to her. Then she said, etc. This is not a second address of Zipporah to Moses, conceived in the same terms, but an explanation of her previous address. She called him “a bloody husband because of the circumcision.” Literally, “of the circumcisions.” The two circumcisions, of Gershom in Midian, and of Eliezer on the way to Egypt, are especially in the writer’s mind.
HOMILETICS
Exo 4:24-26
One small duty neglected may frustrate the whole purpose of a life.
To an Israelite the circumcision of his male children on the eighth day was a plain practical duty, resting upon a positive precept, which was unambiguous and peremptory. (See Gen 17:10-14.) Moses, probably in deference to the wishes of his wife, who disliked the custom, had allowed his son, Eliezer, to remain uncircumcised beyond the appointed time, perhaps making the excuse to himself that during a journey such a rite could not conveniently be performed, and intending that the thing should be done when they reached Egypt. But the precept was plain”He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you;’ and nothing had been said by God of any circumstances under which the rite might be deferred. It was the appointed means by which the child was to be brought into covenant with God; and if he died before the performance of the rite, he would die out of covenant, and so suffer a wrong. Moses probably thought that his sin was a little matterperhaps hardly recognised it as a sin at all. But it was the “little rift within the lute” which destroyed the whole value of the instrument. He who “shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all” (Jas 2:10). God thought the neglect no small matter, and would have punished it, had it not been repaired, with death. It can never be a small matter to neglect any command of God, be it to perform a rite, or to undergo one, or to keep a particular day holy, or any other. When a positive command is admitted to have come from God, the obligation to obey it, as Bishop Butler observes, is moral. And so this little duty neglected, had nearly cost Moses his life, Zipporah her husband, the child his natural protector. Moses’ death at this period would have left the whole purpose of his life unaccomplished, have handed over the deliverance of Israel to another, and have caused his special powers and special training to have been wasted. Let men beware, then, of the neglect of little duties, the allowance in themselves of “little sins.” Let them beware especially of being led into such “little sins,” by over-complaisance to a wife, a friend, a companion. Many a man would have stood firm, but for such seductive influence. A man who is truly manly will resist it, and risk the loss of human affection, secure of the Divine approval.
HOMILIES BY G.A. GOODHART
Exo 4:19-29
My times are in Thy hand.
Moses thought himself fit for his work at forty-eager to undertake it before the years increased; God waits until his self-confidence has abated, and then, at eighty, gives him his commission.
I. THE GREAT COMMISSION. His errand is to Pharaoh, as an ambassador from the King of heaven to the king of Egypt. Notice
1. His credentials. As coming in a king’s name he must be accredited by the king who sends him. God gives him signs, very simple but very significant.
(1) The shepherd’s rod, emblem of his office, turned into a serpent, emblem of his new dignity.
(2) A hand made leprous and cleansed, emblem of a people degraded but to be redeemed.
(3) A libation of water turned to blood, emblem of life smitten by judgment. The signs are simplea rod, a hand, a cup of water; so are most of God’s signs; yet by the way in which he uses them they accredit the messenger, and attest the authenticity of his message.
2. His message corresponds with the last two signs:
(1) A command. Israel in slavery is to be released. God will have his son free, the leprous cleansed.
(2) A threat. If Pharaoh refuse, his son shall be slain; the joy of his life turned to blood. Such the commission given to Moses, and to fulfil which he starts for Egypt.
II. THE GREAT TRIAL: Exo 4:24-26. [Illustration:A man about to enter into battle carefully selects his best weapon. Is it, however, really trustworthy?has it no weak points? He must prove it that he may know. Proving looks like seeking to break; it is seeking to discover if breakage is possible.] God having selected Moses, must prove him before he uses him; so if the proof brings out weak points they may at any rate be remedied. “The Lord met him and sought to kill him.” Two weak points were immediately discovered:
1. A broken covenant. He who is selected to represent the covenant people, is himself shown to be a covenant-breaker! His son uncircumcised!! If judgment must fall on Egypt it must begin at the house of God. Moses must himself be purified before he can be allowed to denounce Pharaoh.
2. A refractory wife. The secret of the broken covenant was clearly the wilful obstinacy of Zipporah. She is compelled to do through fear what she would not yield from love. A man’s wife is meant for a help-meet; if not that, she may be his greatest hindrance. Let Zipporah return to Midian for the time (Exo 18:2), and at least leave her husband unencumbered. So out of the trial God makes a way of escape; proves and reproves his servant that he may improve and approve him.
III. THE GREAT CONSOLATION: Exo 4:27, Exo 4:28. God does not do, what kings and rulers too often do, treat his envoys as mere machines, forgetting their human needs and cravings. If Zipporah is no help-meet for Moses, he shall have a help-meet who will more than satisfy him. In Aaron he finds sympathy, Exo 4:27; to Aaron he can give his confidence, Exo 4:28. His own strength is doubled in the friendship of one who thus shares his burdens.
Application:
1. God gives us commissions, but they are always accompanied by credentials. You say God calls you to do this? Show then the signs of your calling.
2. God’s envoys are not free from trials; rather, they are the more tried that they may be the more trustworthy. The Captain was perfected through suffering.
3. Whatever the commission, whatever the trial, God will empower us to fulfil the one and strengthen us to endure the other. One may well do without Zipporah when God sends him Aaron.G.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Exo 4:24-27
Interpretation of providence.
This mysterious passage in the life of Moses suggests various reflections. The facts are few. Moses, probably in deference to Zipporah’s abhorrence of the rite, had neglected the circumcision of his child. This, in so eminent a servant of God, was a sin which could not be winked at. Least of all could it be overlooked at a time when the covenants were undergoing a species of resurrection, and when Moses was on his way to Egypt for the very purpose of giving effect to them. Hence this incident at the inn. Moses, apparently, was seized by an illness which threatened to be mortal, and a fatal result was only averted by Zipporah, who, at once divining the cause of the affliction, used a sharp stone, and performed the neglected rite. Thus was Moses taught that he who represents God before men must himself be blamelessguiltless of gross neglect of Divine commandments; taught also that service of God must be whole-heartedthat in the way of duty there is to be no conferring with flesh and bloodno pleasing of men at the cost of unfaithfulness to God. “He that loveth father or mother,” etc. (Mat 10:37). Besides these general lessons we draw from the incident such instruction as the following:
I. GOD OFTEN TEACHES US THAT HE IS ANGRY WITH US BY VISITING US WITH AFFLICTIVE DESPENSATIONS, LEAVING US TO FIND OUT THE CAUSE. Even Moses, with whom God had so often spoken, received on this occasion no other warning of his displeasure than this severe illness which so unexpectedly overtook him. Huxley remarks on Nature’s system of education “Nature’s discipline is not even a word and a blow, and the blow first; but the blow without the word. It is left to you to find out why your ears are boxed.” The words apply as fitly to the relation of outward providences to moral and spiritual conditionsa class of relations which this writer would reject, but which nevertheless exist.
II. CONSCIENCE, REMINDING US OF NEGLECTED DUTIES, OR OTHER SINS COMMITTED BY US, IS A READY INTERPRETER OF MANY OF GOD‘S AFFLICTIVE PROVIDENCES. Zipporah guessed at once the cause of this trouble, and the result showed her guess to be correct. So Joseph’s brethren (Gen 42:21).
III. THE HOLIEST OF GOD‘S SERVANTS ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM SEVERE CHASTISEMENTS. We may wonder that God should have chosen this particular time to put a valuable life in peril. It was, however, the summons to depart which brought matters to a crisis. Moses was not ignorant of this neglected duty, and to set out on so grave a mission, and leave it still neglected, was a sin calling for sharp rebuke. This is another illustration of the truth that God. punishes sins in his own children with even greater severity than he does the like sins in others. Do we ask, What if Moses had died? The question is needless. The Divine arrangements had all the facts in contemplation from the first. Had it been foreseen that the anticipated effect would not have followed from the strokethat the trouble would have had a different endingeverything else would have been different to suit. Yet we may not doubt that Moses’ life was for the time really in peril, and that, had repentance not supervened, God would not have receded, even at the cost of a Moses, from inflicting upon him the extreme penalty of his unfaithfulness.
IV. TRUE REPENTANCE INCLUDES REPARATION FOR WRONG, AND WHERE THAT IS POSSIBLE, PERFORMANCE OF NEGLECTED DUTIES. Exemplified in Zipporah.
V. GOD IS ZEALOUS FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF HIS OWN ORDINANCES. It might be pleaded, this is only a ceremony, an outward rite; what great importance is to be attached to it? But God had commanded it, and had even made it the badge of his covenant; therefore neglect of it was an act of disobedience, and implied a low esteem of covenant-privilege. The sacraments may be unduly and foolishly exalted; but there is an opposite sin of disesteeming and neglecting them.J.O.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Exo 4:24 26
Neglect of the covenant on its human side.
In Gen 17:1-27. we find the covenant between God and Abram stated with great particularity and emphasis. On God’s side there were large promises to Abram of an’ abundant posterity and an everlasting possession, and on man’s side there was to be the faithful and regular practice of circumcision. Moses was going to Egypt now in virtue of this very covenant, and as the agent of God to advance it considerably towards its full effect; and yet, strange to say, he had with him an uncircumcised son. No wonder that God visited him by the way, andwhen we look into all the probabilities of the case-no wonder that God made as if he would kill him. The very obscurities of this strange incident help to make it more impressive and admonitory. Consider
I. WHAT THERE MAY BE IN THE NARRATIVE TO THROW LIGHT ON THE CAUSE OF THE OMISSION. It cannot have been that Moses was completely ignorant of God‘s requirement. Had not God recalled the covenant to the particular attention of Moses? He had done so in a sufficiently suggestive way, not by repeating the terms of the covenant in full, but simply by referring to himself as the God of Abraham, IsaActs and Jacob. Having thus been reminded of the covenant, Moses was bound to make himself correctly acquainted with every provision and detail of it. This covenant had been delivered to Abram once for all, and was of such a kind that nothing but the most flagrant neglect could allow the sign of it off its human side to fall into disuse. It was a covenant written in the very body of every true Israelite. Doubtless Moses himself had been circumcised; yet here he is, going as the messenger of God to make progress in fulfilling God’s part of the covenant, and yet his own part, as a member of Israel, he is unmistakably neglecting. Hence we see that he could not have been ignorant; and more than that, neither could he have been forgetful. We are led to infer that easygoing compliance with his Midianite wife, Zipporah, was at the bottom of this neglected duty. It would appear indeed as if Moses had circumcised one son and then left the other uncircumcised. If so, he had shown gross inconsistency. More might have been said for him if both had been uncircumcised. Probably Zipporah, having soon the pain of her firstborn, had struggled and pleaded only too successfully for exemption in the case of the second.
II. THE EXTREMELY MENACING MODE BY WHICH GOD BRINGS MOSES TO A SENSE OF THE OMISSION. “He sought to kill him.” When God proceeds to such an extremity as this, it must be either because of some monstrous breach of duty, or to impress an important commandment by the most efficacious means that can be adopted. There is no need to suppose that Moses, knowing full well the importance of circumcision, yet deliberately omitted it. If so, his conduct would have been very bad indeed. There is a more reasonable and instructive aspect. He was brought nigh to death so that he might learn the truth-and learn it so as never to forget, never to neglect itthat no human being, whatever its claims and whatever its supplications, was to come between God and him. Let Moses now take his choice between pleasing his wife and obeying his God. He could only do God’s work by the most hearty obedience and attention. Nor was he here only as the messenger of God to Israel and Egypt; he was also the responsible head of a household. Leaders who are husbands and parents are watched in all their home relations. If Moses was going to let Zipporah rule and prevail by her womanly wiles in one instance, why not in others? The only way to keep things right was for Zipporah to take her orders from him, and as Moses was to choose between his wife and his God, so Zipporah between her husband and her child. She has to put her child to a passing pain in order that she may spare her husband from impending death. Indeed, poor woman, she had been greatly tried of late: compelled to leave her father and her dear native land, and go on an expedition the reasons of which would be but indifferently comprehended by her. Whichever way she turns, and whatever she does, there is something to vex her soul. Dearly had she paid for that chivalrous service which Moses had rendered her. and her sisters so many years before. The awkwardness of being unequally yoked is felt by the unbeliever as much as the believer.Y.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Exo 4:24. And it came to pass, &c. The best account which can be given of the extraordinary event here related, is, that Moses having deferred the circumcision of one of his sons, perhaps out of compliance with his wife; God was highly offended with him for such neglect; not only, because Moses knew that no child could be admitted a member of the Jewish community, nor be entitled to the blessings of God’s covenant with that people, without circumcision; but also because his example was of great consequence: for who would have regarded the law, if the law-giver himself had neglected it? Zipporah, therefore, conscious of her husband’s danger, as well as of her own defect, hastened immediately, and herself performed the office upon her son: in consequence of which, the cause being removed, God’s anger also ceased; and he suffered Moses to pursue his journey. The original word, which we render inn, signifies only a place of rest (diversorium), where they lodged for that night; for there were no inns, properly so called, in that part of the world. The sharp stone which she used, rendered knife in the margin of our Bibles, is supposed to have been a knife made of flint; which, we have many testimonies from ancient writers, was a species of knives commonly made use of in those days.
Learn from this account, 1. How dangerous is absence from the people of God, and the means of grace. 2. How apt we are to yield to the foolish fondness of others, even to the offending of God. 3. That God’s people will not escape his anger, when they offend him. 4. When we have neglected duty, we must return to it without delay. 5. The removal of our sins will usually alleviate or remove our judgments. 6. We must be content to bear reproach in God’s service.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
There seems somewhat obscure in this verse. Probably, as Zipporah was of Midian, she had prevailed upon Moses to neglect the rite of circumcision. And if so, this omission was highly sinful. See Gen 17:14 . The sins of God’s people are cutting things, and will not pass unvisited. Psa 89:30-32 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Ver. 24. And sought to kill him. ] To do justice upon him, according to Gen 17:14 , and as upon one that was an unfit man to take care of the Church, having no better ordered his own house. 1Ti 3:5 God passeth not by the sins of his best children without a sensible check, especially if scandalous and committed against conscience. He hath much ado to forbear killing us in such cases: he is even ready to have a blow at us, and cries like a travailing woman, who bites in her pain while she can, to be delivered of his judgments. Isa 42:14
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
by the way in the inn. A further lesson, not learnt in Egypt or at Horeb. A secret in Moses’ life, known only to himself. Moses had neglected to circumcise Eliezer. To save the child’s life, Zipporah now performs the rite herself.
him = the son (Exo 4:23). Compare Gen 17:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
kill him
(Cf) Gen 17:14 The context (Gen 4:25) interprets Gen 4:25. Moses was forgetful of the very foundation sign of Israel’s covenant relation to Jehovah. On the eve of delivering Israel he was thus reminded that without circumcision an Israelite was cut off from the covenant. Jos 5:3-9.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
the inn: Gen 42:27, The account in this and the two following verses, although rather obscure, seems to imply, that on their way to the land of Egypt, an angel appeared to Moses, and sought to kill his son, on account of his father’s non-observance of the Lord’s positive command to Abraham, that every man child of the Jewish nation, or born in his house in servitude, should be circumcised on the eighth day; and the Zipporah, at the command of Moses, immediately fulfilled the injunction, and thus averted the wrath of God, denounced against the disobedient: “The uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people.” Gen 17:14
the Lord: Exo 3:18, Num 22:22, Num 22:23, 1Ch 21:16, Hos 13:8
sought: Gen 17:14, Lev 10:3, 1Ki 13:24
Reciprocal: Luk 2:7 – the inn Luk 10:34 – an inn
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 4:24. By the way in the inn Here our translation uses the modern word inn: but the original signifies only the place where they rested that night, which was probably in some cave, or under some shade of trees. The Lord met him The Septuagint says, The angel of the Lord, with which agree the Chaldee and some other ancient versions: and sought to kill him He appeared in a threatening posture, probably with a sword drawn in his hand, or inflicted upon him some disease which threatened him with death. This was a great change: very lately God was conversing with him as a friend, and is now coming forth against him as an enemy. The cause seems to have been Mosess neglecting to circumcise his son; which, perhaps, was the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, and Moses so of her. Now God was offended with him for this neglect of duty, not only because Moses knew that no child could be admitted a member of the Israelitish community without circumcision, nor be entitled to the blessings of Gods covenant with Abrahams seed, but also, because Mosess example was of great consequence; for who would have regarded the law if the lawgiver himself had neglected it? As Moses was raised up for an extraordinary service, it was peculiarly proper that he should set an example of exact obedience in his own conduct. Hence he was thus sharply rebuked.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 4:24-26 J. Moses Threatened with Death Decause Uncircumcised.This is an old and strange boulder of tradition. The incident here follows Exo 4:20 a. It appears to relate in strongly anthropomorphic phrase a grave illness which Mosess wife interpreted as a punishment for neglect of the rite of circumcision, and remedied by symbolically substituting the circumcision of his son. The rite appears here as one preliminary to marriage, and not in the milder form of Genesis 17*, administered in infancy (cf. pp. 83, 99f.). The use of flint is, no doubt, a survival of an archaic practice, begun before metal knives were in use (Jos 5:2*). Ritual is ever conservative.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and {l} sought to kill him.
(l) God punished him with sickness for neglecting his ordinances.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
This brief account raises several questions.
Evidently God afflicted Moses because Moses had not been obedient to God. He failed to circumcise at least one of his two sons (Exo 18:3-4). The Egyptians practiced partial circumcision on adults. [Note: J. M. Sasson, "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East," Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966):473-74.] God’s sentence for this sin of omission was death ("cut off from his people," cf. Gen 17:14). God was ready to carry out this sentence on Moses for his failure (cf. 1Jn 5:16). In doing this God was making Moses face his own incomplete obedience that reflected his lack of faith in God. God afflicted Moses, but whether He did so naturally or supernaturally is unclear and unimportant. In this incident God was bringing Moses to the place he brought Jacob when He wrestled with him at the Jabbok (Genesis 32). He was getting him to acknowledge His sovereignty. [Note: See M. J. Oosthuizen, "Some thoughts on the interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26," OTWSA 29(1986):22-28.]
Zipporah ("little bird") performed the operation at her husband’s insistence. It is obvious that she did not approve of it. Most scholars believe that Zipporah cut off the foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet. One writer believed that she touched Moses’ genitals with her son’s foreskin. [Note: Durham, p. 58.] Another argued that she threw it at the feet of the preincarnate Christ. [Note: Ronald B. Allen, "The ’Bloody Bridegroom’ in Exodus 4:24-26," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):259-69.] Perhaps because of her resistance to do the will of God Moses sent her and his sons back to her father at this time. Moses may have sent her back during or before the plagues, when his life might have been in danger from the Egyptians. We have no record of when Moses’ household returned to Midian, but we read of them rejoining Moses later at Sinai (Exo 18:2).
The "bridegroom of blood" figure (Exo 4:26) evidently means as follows. Apparently Zipporah regarded her act of circumcising her son as what removed God’s hand of judgment from Moses and restored him to life and to her again. It was as though God had given Moses a second chance and he had begun life as her husband over as a bridegroom (cf. Jonah). [Note: Cassuto, pp. 59-61.] She had accepted Yahweh’s authority and demands and was now viewing Moses in the light of God’s commission. She abandoned her claim to Moses and made him available to Yahweh’s service. [Note: Oosthuizen, p. 26.] "You are a bridegroom of blood to me," may have been an ancient marital relationship formula recalling circumcision as a premarital rite. [Note: T. C. Mitchell, "The Meaning of the Noun HTN in the Old Testament," Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969):94-105, 111-12.]
"Moses has been chosen and commissioned by God, but he has shown himself far from enthusiastic about confronting the Pharaoh and threatening him with the death of his son. YHWH sets about showing Moses that although he is safe from other men (Ex. iv 19) he faces a much greater danger to his life in the wrath of the God whom he is so reluctant to serve (iv 14). Like Jacob before him, Moses must undergo a night struggle with his mysterious God before he can become a worthy instrument of YHWH and can enjoy a completely satisfactory relationship with his brother. In all this, Moses, like Jacob, is not only an historical person, but also a paradigm. The Israelite people, the people whom YHWH has encountered and whom he will slay with pestilence and sword if they go not out into the wilderness to serve him (Exo 4:3), must ponder this story with fear and trembling.
"If Israel is to survive the wrath of YHWH, it must, our text implies, be by virtue of the spilling of atoning blood . . . Gershom’s blood saves Moses, just as the blood of the Passover lamb will save the Israelites. Since for the sin of the Pharaoh his son’s blood will be shed, it is appropriate that the blood which saves Moses should not be his own, but that of his son. It is also fitting that this blood should be blood shed during the rite of circumcision. Since before the Passover lamb is eaten the participants must all be circumcised, it is right that the neglect of Gershom’s circumcision (though this omission is not the cause of the attack) should be repaired. The boy cannot be circumcised by his father, who is otherwise engaged, so Zipporah takes it upon herself, acting on behalf of her absent father, Jethro (hence the words to Moses ’You are my son-in-law by virtue of blood, the blood of circumcision’), to perform the rite, thus showing herself to be a worthy member of the elite class typified by Rahab the Canaanite harlot and Ruth the Moabitess-the foreign woman who puts Israelites to shame and earns the right to be held up as a model for imitation. Why does she touch Moses’ raglayim ["feet"] with the severed foreskin? Although, as I have argued, Moses is to be thought of as already circumcised, this action of his wife is, I have suggested, to be construed as a symbolic act of re-circumcision: Moses as representative of the people as a whole is thus symbolically prepared for the imminent Passover celebration. The vocation of the Israelite is a matter of high moment. One’s reluctance to serve YHWH wholeheartedly has to be broken down in a fearsome lone struggle in the darkness, and even then before one can meet YHWH there must be a twofold shedding of blood, the blood of circumcision and that of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, the pride of the male Israelite in his high vocation must needs be qualified, by reflecting that in his mysterious strategies for the world YHWH often employs in major roles those who are neither male nor even Israelite." [Note: Bernard P. Robinson, "Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus IV 24-6," Vetus Testamentum 36:4 (October 1986):459-61.]
These few verses underscore a very important principle. Normally before God will use a person publicly he or she must first be obedient to God at home (cf. 1Ti 3:4-5).
"This story of Moses shows that God would rather have us die than take up His work with unconsecrated hearts and unsurrendered wills." [Note: Meyer, p. 81.]