Exodus 4:21-26

The Three Sons (Exodus 4:21).

This section could be described as being at the heart of the book of Exodus, for it deals with three attitudes that lie at the heart of God's dealings with the world: His dealings with Israel, His dealings with Pharaoh and His dealings with each individual who is to serve Him. It takes up three aspects of sonship and faces us all up with a choice, for each of us must decide whose sons we will be. And the passage centralises on Yahweh's attitude towards these three sons.

The first sonship relates to Yahweh Himself. In Exodus 4:22 He declares true Israel's relationship with Him. He declares, ‘Israel is my son, my firstborn.' What amazing words were these. They depicted God's love for Israel as being like a father's love for his firstborn son. He was declaring that they had become so precious to Him that He had adopted them as His firstborn. It was they who were chosen to receive His inheritance. It is this concept that lies at the root of all that will follow. In His sovereign power He has elected to make them His son (compare Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 14:1; Deuteronomy 1:31 also Exodus 19:5). And the corollary was, woe betide those who failed to treat His firstborn son rightly. It should, however, be noted that here it is Israel as a whole which is His son, Israel as He intended it to be. It was on them that He had set His love.

In contrast with Yahweh's firstborn is the firstborn of Pharaoh (Exodus 4:23). Here was one whom Pharaoh treasured, and who was paraded as a budding god, one who was the delight of Egypt. And Pharaoh was to be warned that if he did not deal rightly with Yahweh's firstborn, his own firstborn would be slain. Behind this warning lies the very basis on which the world exists. The world as represented by Egypt is responsible for its response to God and His people. And if the world does not respond rightly then it can only come into judgment, and will be punished like for like.

But there is a third son brought into the reckoning, and that is Moses' own son, although he is not said to be his firstborn, even if in context it might be assumed. And here was a real problem. Moses' son had not been circumcised. He was not marked off as belonging to God, and because of this was ‘cut off' from the people of God (Genesis 17:14). He was not a part of God's firstborn son. This demonstrated Moses' divided loyalty. Here was a paradox indeed. On the one hand this son was the son of God's chosen servant, but on the other he was aligned with those who were not of God because Moses had not circumcised his son. This situation could not be allowed to continue and explains the severity of the passage. Moses had to choose to Whom his son and his family would belong. Would they belong inside the covenant or outside it? Would their future lie with Israel, or with their tribe? Behind the passage lies a message to us all. Whose son will we choose to be? And by our response will be determined our destiny.

Exodus 4:21

‘And Yahweh said to Moses, “When you go back into Egypt see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your hand, but I will make his heart strong and he will not let the people go. And you will say to Pharaoh, ‘Israel is my son, my firstborn, and I have said to you let my son go that he may serve me. And you have refused to let him go. Behold I will slay your son, your firstborn.' ” '

Yahweh now let Moses know what was in store for him. He told him that he must begin by showing Pharaoh the wonders that he would first have shown to the elders of the children of Israel. That was why he had brought with him the rod of God. But Yahweh would give Pharaoh strength of heart to resist so that he would refuse to let them go to worship Yahweh. It will, however, be noticed later that at first Pharaoh hardened his own heart. The divine will and the human purpose went along in parallel. It was only later, once Pharaoh had proved his obduracy, that God's action was more direct.

Then he must issue him with a dire warning. He must tell him that Israel is to Yahweh like a firstborn son, beloved and treasured, and that because he has refused them permission to go to worship Him and offer sacrifices to Him in the wilderness He will slay Pharaoh's firstborn in return. If he sought to break Yahweh's heart, Yahweh would break his heart. This will be a direct challenge to Pharaoh's deity. He may see himself as a god, as may his people, but the assertion is that he will not be able to protect his son, also a budding god. And he will deserve it.

The use of the term firstborn demonstrates how important Yahweh's people are to Him. The firstborn son was always received with the greatest joy. Here was the one who would inherit and maintain the continuance of the family name. Here was the one who would receive the choice portion. He was highly prized. And this was what Israel were to God. But the idea behind the word ‘Israel' is fluid. It was not fixed and immutable. Men could refuse to be recognised as Israelites, and God would let them go. Men could prove that they were not Israelites by their behaviour and then God would cut them off. And men could become Israelites by joining permanently the households of those who were, by being circumcised into the covenant (Exodus 12:48) and by committing themselves to Yahweh.

The significance of the application of this term firstborn is brought out in Deuteronomy. They are the people chosen and loved by Yahweh from their commencement, a holy people and a special treasure which was why He had bound Himself to them by an oath (Deuteronomy 7:6).

So in all this central to God's actions is His love for Israel. As the descendants of Jacob they are as a firstborn son to Him. As He cherished Abraham, Isaac and Jacob so will He cherish these His people. He is their father and they are his adopted son, treated as His firstborn and therefore of great importance. This will one day be a strong weapon in the hands of the prophets as they seek to convince Israel and Judah of their sins (Malachi 1:6) and a basis on which the people will plead with God (Isaiah 63:16; Isaiah 64:8). See also Psalms 68:5. Yet it is not a prominent thought in the prophetic teaching.

This is the second use in Exodus of ‘Israel' without the phrase ‘children of--' (see Exodus 3:16 and contrast Exodus 4:29). In both cases it is caused by the requirements of the thought. In the first ‘elders of Israel' still has in mind that these men stand in the place of and represent Israel/Jacob as heads of the tribe, here it is used by God as a collective personal name, with Jacob as the representative of the fathers well in mind, for the purpose of speaking to Pharaoh. (See also on Genesis 34:7; Genesis 49:7). It is also the name by which Pharaoh will speak of the children of Israel (Exodus 5:2). There will be a gradual movement towards using it as a tribal name but it has not yet solidified. It will be a slow and gradual process. However, from now on Pharaoh sees them mainly as ‘Israel' (5:1-2; 9:4; 14:5).

The wonders which I have put in your hand.' This refers to his staff which was now the symbol of his authority and power from God, and was the evidence of what God would do through Moses.

“I will make his heart strong.” But why should God give Pharaoh the strength to resist Him? Instead of love, for Pharaoh there is to be a hardening. The answer lies partly in the way that He has made men, and is partly given in the account that follows. In one sense it was Pharaoh who strengthened his own heart against God. Literally ‘his heart was heavy'. But then God would confirm his attitude and, as it were, give him a little help through circumstances so that he kept firm. Indeed it was necessary for Him to do so, so that Pharaoh could learn his lesson. We have here the paradox of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Pharaoh would in fact have been hardhearted in this matter whatever God did. But the writer recognises that all is of God, and therefore if he was hardhearted, then God had done it. (And even then Pharaoh chased after Israel once he had let them go, which was very much the result of his own hardness of heart).

Furthermore there would come a time, foreseen by God, when he had so hardened himself that every attempt to soften him could only result in a further hardening. Then God knew that everything He did would harden Pharaoh's heart even more. So He could say quite truly, ‘I will harden his heart.'

As we have seen, in contrast to Yahweh's firstborn is the firstborn of Pharaoh. He was the pride and hope of Egypt. But Pharaoh is warned that because he will not deal rightly with Yahweh's firstborn, his own firstborn will be doomed. What a man sows he will reap.

This thought of the slaying of the firstborn now leads on to an incident in Moses' life that followed these words, where Moses life was put in danger because his son has not been circumcised. It is not only Pharaoh who was to be judged if he failed to obey God. Here was Moses going to deliver God's firstborn, a sonship evidenced by their having been circumcised, and yet at least one of his own sons was not circumcised. We may even surmise that God had put a strong feeling within him that he should circumcise his sons, but had been strongly resisted in the case of one by his wife.

Exodus 4:24

‘And it came about on the way, at the lodging place, that Yahweh met him and sought to cause his death. Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at his feet. And she said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” So he let him alone. Then she said, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.” '

It is clear from this passage that at least one of Moses' sons had not been circumcised. But now that Moses was going among his own people, to whom circumcision was a sign of the covenant, this could not be allowed. It was a sign of disobedience and refusal to respond to the covenant requirements. And it may well have indicated the divided loyalties of his family. And this with Moses of all people, the one who would act in the name of the covenant! Thus God moved in to warn him.

“Her son.” The relative pronoun may signify that she saw the firstborn as especially her son, or it may be that while Moses had insisted on circumcising his firstborn son, his wife had claimed the second to be more peculiarly hers, and had resisted his being circumcised.

“Yahweh met him and sought to cause his death.” (Literally ‘to kill him'). Clearly this means that in some way Moses was brought face to face with death, probably through some illness, in a way that made him and his wife conscious of their flagrant disobedience. (Had Yahweh really wanted to kill him he would have been dead). It is clear that Zipporah knew precisely where the problem lay, for she acted rapidly and circumcised her son, averting the threat of death. This suggests that she had been holding out against it and was only brought to submit by the perilous situation.

“At the lodging place.” Because he had his family with him it is possible he lodged at some kind of primitive inn, but such would be unlikely here in the wilderness. It may simply mean that they received hospitality in a tent, or in a lean-to left to be used by travellers, or took up residence by a convenient spring.

“Took a flint.” It was the custom that circumcision as an ancient rite had to be performed with a flint knife (compare Joshua 3:5). This was in fact a good custom as a flint knife would be sterilised.

“Of her son.” In Exodus 4:20 she had more than one son, but it may be that it was recognised that it was the circumcision of the firstborn that was important at this point. Or perhaps one had already been circumcised as suggested above, and this was the second son whom she looked on as more peculiarly her own.

“Cast it at his feet.” Literally ‘made it touch his feet.' Presumably as an offering to Yahweh to avert the tragedy, like the application of the blood of sacrifice, or possibly in annoyance at what was to her a distasteful rite, or because she was having to choose between loyalty to her tribe and loyalty to Moses and to Yahweh. It may have been that, having given way on the first son, she had opposed the circumcision of her second son (or vice versa). Thus one son was part of Yahweh's ‘firstborn' while the other paralleled Pharaoh's firstborn.

“Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” Her words are considered important for they are repeated twice. It would appear to be an indirect petition, a pious petition to Yahweh, signifying that the required blood had been spilt. Or it may have been a complaint suggesting that marriage to him had introduced her to this distasteful rite of blood. She may have been saying ‘It was not until I married you that I had to put up with this kind of thing.'

Blood was in fact important in all serious relationships. Covenants were sealed in blood. It may thus be that she was angry at being forced into a covenant that she did not want to partake in, and recognised that now the covenant blood was binding on her too.

“Because of the circumcisions.” Circumcision is in the plural. This may simply be a plural of intensity indicating the importance of circumcision, or it may be seen as confirming Zipporah's anger that she had previously had to circumcise one son, and had now had to circumcise the other. It would seem to confirm that both sons had now been circumcised.

A vital lesson arises from this passage to which we must all take heed, and that is that it is no good our going forward to take our place in the purposes of God if there is failure with our own personal lives. Unless we are prepared to put right our personal lives and cease to have divided loyalties then seeking to serve God can only bring us into judgment. It is an insult to God. We must first make right the situation and then we can come and offer our gift (Matthew 5:23).