Exodus 4

Exodus 4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, Jehovah hath not appeared unto 2thee. And Jehovah said unto him, What is that [this] in thine [thy] hand? And he said, A rod. 3And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, 4and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And Jehovah said unto Moses, Put forth thy hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: 5That they may believe that Jehovah, God [the God] of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 6the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. And Jehovah said furthermore unto him, Put now thine [thy] hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. 7And he said, Put thine [thy] hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again, and plucked [took] it out of his bosom, and behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. 8And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither [nor] hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. 9And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also [even] these two signs, neither [nor] hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land; and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land. 10And Moses said unto Jehovah, O my Lord, [O Lord], I am not eloquent [lit. a man of words], neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant; but [for] I am slow of speech [mouth] 11and of a slow [slow of] tongue. And Jehovah said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the [maketh] dumb, or deaf, or the seeing [or seeing], or the blind? [or blind?] Have [Do] not I, Jehovah? 12Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. 13And he said, O my Lord [O Lord], send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. 14And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron, the Levite, thy brother? I know [Do I not know Aaron, thy brother, the Levite,] that he can speak well? And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee, and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. 15And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words [the words] in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. 16And he shall be thy spokesman [shall speak for thee] unto the people, and he [it] shall be, even [that] he shall be to thee instead of 17[for] a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of [for a] God. And thou shalt take this rod in thine [thy] hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs [the signs]. 18And Moses went, and returned to Jethro [Jether] his father-in-law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which [who] are in Egypt, and see whether they be [are] yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace. 19And Jehovah said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt; for all the men are dead which [who] sought thy life. 20And Moses took his wife, and his sons, and set them [made them ride] upon an [the] ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt. 21And Moses took the rod of God in his hand. And Jehovah said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in thy hand [consider all the wonders which I have put in thy hand, and do them before Pharaoh]; but I will harden his heart that he shall [and he will] not let the people go. 22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my first-born. 23And I say [said] unto thee, Let my son go that he may serve me; and if thou refuse [and thou didst refuse]6 to let him go: behold, I will slay thy son, even thy first-born. 24And it came 25to pass by the way in the inn, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. Then [And] 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 [a bridegroom of blood] 26 art thou to me. So [And] lie [i.e., Jehovah] let him go [desisted from him]; then she 27said, A bloody husband [A bridegroom of blood] thou art, because of the circumcision. And Jehovah said to Aaron, Go into [to] the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him. 28And Moses told Aaron all the words of Jehovah who had sent him [with which he had charged him], and all the signs which he had commanded him. 29And Moses and Aaron went, and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel. 30And Aaron spake all the words which Jehovah had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. 31And the people believed, and when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads [bowed down], and worshipped.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[Exodus 4:14. We have ventured to follow the Vulg., Luther, Cranmer, the Geneva Version, De Wette, Glaire, and Kalisch, in this rendering; for, though grammatically the reading of the A. V. in more natural, yet it is difficult to see the force of the question, “Is not Aaron thy brother?” Fürst, Arnheim, and Murphy, try to avoid the difficulty by rendering, “Is there not Aaron, thy brother, the Levite?” etc. This, however, is putting in what is not in the original. Bush, following Rashi, translates, “Is not Aaron thy brother, the Levite?” and understands the question to intimate that, in consequence of Moses’ reluctance to obey the divine commission, the priesthood, which otherwise would have been conferred on him, will be given to Aaron. As nothing is said about the priesthood, it is hard to see how the phrase “the Levite,” at this time, before any priesthood bad been established, could have been understood in this way. Knobel, translating in the same way, understands it as pointing forward to the duty of the priests to give public instruction. But the same objection lies against this, as against the previous explanation; Moses was a Levite as much as Aaron was. Lange, translating also the same way, understands the meaning to be: Aaron is a more genuine Levite than Moses. But in this case the definite article is quite out of place; and even without it such a thought would be very obscurely expressed. Keil, following Baumgarten, finds the significance of the question in the etymological meaning of לֵוִי, viz., to join, associate one’s-self to. This certainly has the advantage of suggesting a reason for the use of the phrase “the Levite,” which on other theories seems to be superfluous. But the definite article is out of place on this hypothesis also. Besides, as the special point here is Aaron’s ability to talk, the notion of association is not just the one needed to be suggested by the term, to say nothing of the subtlety of the mode of conveying either conception. Tr.].

[Exodus 4:18. אֵלְכָה־נָא is not to be understood as a request, as the A. V. seems to imply, especially by the phrase, “I pray thee,” which corresponds to נָא. We have exactly the same form in Exodus 3:3, where Moses said אָסֻרָה־נָא “I will turn aside,” or, “Let me turn aside.”—Tr.].

[Exodus 4:23. וָאֹמַר and וַתְּמָאֵן are most naturally to be rendered as preterites. It is very doubtful whether וַתְּמָאֵן can be taken as protasis to the following clause. The translation of the A. V. and of others, seems to have been prompted by the idea that this is the opening message to Pharaoh. But the threat to kill the first-born was in reality the last one made. The declaration, Exodus 4:21, covers all the first part of the efforts of Moses to secure the deliverance of the people. In spite of all the plagues and signs, Pharaoh “will not let the people go.” Therefore (Exodus 4:22) Moses is to make his final appearance, and threaten the death of the first-born because of Pharaoh’s past refusal to obey. Tr.].

[Exodus 4:28. שָׁלַח may take a double accusative, as e.g. in 2 Samuel 11:22; 1 Kings 14:6. As Kalisch observes, “the usual translation, who had sent him, is languid in the extreme.”—Tr.].

[Exodus 4:31. Knobel, following the reading ἐχάρη, of the LXX., would change וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ into וַיִּשְׂמְחוּ. There seems to be strong reason for the change. The people, according to the present text, seem to believe, before hearing. Moreover, we have, as Knobel points out, another almost unmistakable instance of the same error. The narrative in 2 Kings 20:13 is identical with that in Isaiah 39:2, with the exception that the first passage has וַיִּשְׁמַע where the second has וַיִּשְׂמַח. The LXX. has here, too ἐχάρη in both cases. In reference to 2 Kings 20:13, Keil says that “וַיִּשְׁמַע seems to be an error of transcription for וַיִּשְׂמַח,” though he says of Knobel’s conjecture concerning the verse before us, that it is “without ground.” If we adopt the amended reading, we translate, “and they rejoiced because Jehovah had visited,” etc.—Tr.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Chap. Exodus 4:1. Four hundred years of natural development had succeeded the era of patriarchal revelations, and the people were no longer accustomed to prophetic voices. The more ground therefore did Moses seem to have for his anxiety lest the people would not believe him. Jehovah, moreover, does not blame him for his doubts, but gives him three marks of authentication. The symbolical nature of these miraculous signs is noticed also by Keil.

Exodus 4:2-5. The casting down of the shepherd’s rod may signify the giving up of his previous pastoral occupation. As a seemingly impotent shepherd’s rod he becomes a serpent, he excites all the hostile craft and power of the Egyptians. Pharaoh especially appears in the whole process also as a serpent-like liar. But as to the serpent, it is enough to understand by it the dark, hostile power of the Egyptians which now at first frightened him. It is true, the enemy of the woman’s seed, the old serpent, constitutes the background of the Egyptian hostility; but here the symbol of the Egyptian snake kind is sufficient. When Moses, however, seizes the serpent by the tail, by its weaponless natural part, as is illustrated in the Egyptian plagues, it becomes a rod again, and now a divine rod of the shepherd of the people.

Exodus 4:6-8. The white leprosy is here meant. Comp. Leviticus 13:3. “As to the significance of this sign, it is quite arbitrary, with Theodoret and others, down to Kurtz, to understand the hand to represent the people of Israel; and still more arbitrary, with Kurtz, to make the bosom represent first Egypt, and then Canaan, as the hiding-place of Israel. If the shepherd’s rod symbolizes Moses’ vocation, it is the hand which bears the rod, and governs. In his bosom the attendant carries the babe,” etc. (Keil). The leprosy has been explained, now as signifying the miserable condition of the Jews, now as the contagious influence upon them of Egyptian impurity. Through the sympathy of his bosom with the leprosy of his people Moses’ hand itself becomes in his bosom leprous; but through the same sympathy his hand becomes clean again. The actions of his sympathy cause him to appear as an accomplice in the guilt of Israel; and he really is not free from guilt; but the same actions have a sort of propitiatory power, which also inures to the benefit of the people. Jehohovah raises the voice of this second, sacerdotal sign above the voice of the first.

Exodus 4:9. As the first miraculous sign symbolized a predominantly prophetic action, the second a sacerdotal, so the third a kingly kind. It gives him the power to turn into blood the water of the Nile, which is for Egypt a source of life, a sort of deity; i.e., out of the very life-force to evoke the doom of death. Let us not forget that a whole succession of Egyptian plagues proceeds from the first one, the corruption of the Nile water.

As these miraculous signs are throughout symbolical, so, in their first application, they are probably conditioned by a state of ecstasy. Yet the first miracle is also literally performed before Pharaoh, and in its natural basis is allied with the Egyptian serpent charming. Vid. Hengst. [Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 100 sqq.].

The third sign, however, is expanded in the result into the transformation of the water of the Nile into blood. This, too, has its connection with Egypt; therefore there must doubtless have been some mysterious fact involved in the second sign, inasmuch moreover as the text reports that Moses did the signs before the people, and thus authenticated his mission before them (Exodus 4:30-31), although indeed in Exodus 4:17 the signs seem to be reduced to signs done with the staff.

Exodus 4:10-12. There were wanted no more signs, but, as Moses’ modesty led him to feel, more oratorical ability. How could Moses have exercised his slow tongue in his long isolation in the desert, associating with few men, and those who could but little understand him? This difficulty Jehovah also regards. He will impart to him the divine eloquence, which from that time through the history of the whole kingdom of God remains different from that of the natural man. He ordained for him his peculiar organs, and the organic defect of a heavy tongue, as all organs and organic defects in general, and will know how to make of his tongue his divine organ, as the history of the kingdom of God has so richly proved.

Exodus 4:13-14. It cannot be said (with Keil) that now the secret depth of his heart becomes open, in the sense that he will not undertake the mission. If this were the case, Jehovah would no longer deal with him. But the last sigh of his ill-humor, of his despondency, finds vent in these words, which are indeed sinful enough to excite the anger of Jehovah, and so also to make him feel as if death were about to overtake him. We are reminded here of similar utterances of Isaiah (Exodus 2:6), of Jeremiah, (Exodus 2:1), of the detention of Calvin in Geneva by the adjurations of Farel, and similar scenes. The anger of Jehovah is not of a sort which leads him to break with Moses; and in the further expression of it it appears that the hesitation on account of the slow tongue is still not yet overcome. Is not Aaron thy brother?—“The Levite” means probably a genuine Levite, a model of a Levite, more than Moses. With the cautious genius a more lively talent was to be associated. Also he seems, in reference to the affairs of the Israelites, to be more prompt than Moses; for he is already on the way to look for Moses (doubtless in consequence of divine instigation). Vid. Exodus 4:27, where the sense is pluperfect. Moses, then, has two things to encourage him: he is to have a spokesman, and the spokesman is already coming in the form of his own brother. For a similar mysterious connection of spirits, vid. Acts 44:10.

Exodus 4:15-16. The fixing of the relation between Moses and God, and between Moses and Aaron, must have entirely quieted the doubter. The relation between Moses and Aaron is to be analogous to that between God and his prophet. This assignment does not favor the notion of a literal verbal inspiration, but all the more decidedly that of a real one. It accords with the spirit of Judaistic caution, when the Targums tone down לֵאלֹהִים into לְיַב “for a master or teacher.”

Exodus 4:17. And this staff. Out of the rustic shepherd’s staff was to be made a divine shepherd’s staff, the symbolic organ of the divine signs. This ordinance, too, must have elevated his soul. Here there was to be no occasion to say, “ gentle staff, would I had ne’er exchanged thee for the sword!”

Exodus 4:18. This request for a leave of absence is truthful, but does not express the whole truth. This Jethro could not have borne. His brethren are the Israelites, and his investigating whether they are yet alive has a higher significance.

Exodus 4:19. All the men are dead.—This disclosure is introduced with eminent fitness. Among the motives which made Moses willing to undertake the mission, this assurance should not be one. He had first to form his resolution at the risk of finding them still living. Moreover, he has on account of these men at least expressed no hesitation.

Exodus 4:20-26. What is here related belongs to Moses’ journey from Jethro’s residence to the Mount Horeb, i.e., from the south-eastern part of the desert.

Exodus 4:20. His sons.—Only the one, Gershom, has been named, and that because his name served to express Moses’ feeling of expatriation in Midian. The other, Eliezer, is named afterwards (Exodus 18:3-4). But his name is introduced here by the Vulgate (according to some MSS., by the LXX.), and by Luther. Moses went on foot by the side of those riding on asses, but bears the staff of God in his hand. “Poor as his outward appearance is, yet he has in his hand the staff before which Pharaoh’s pride and all his power must bow” [Keil].

Exodus 4:21. On the way from Midian to Horeb, towards Egypt, Jehovah repeats and expands the first commission, as it was in accordance with Moses’ disposition to become absorbed in meditations on his vocation. All the wonders.—כָּל־הַמֹּפְתִים. The τέρατα, or the terrible signs which are committed to him constitute a whole; and accordingly he is to unfold the whole series in order (on miracles vid. the Comm. on Matt., p. 153). And why? Because this is made necessary in order to meet the successive displays of obduracy with which Pharaoh is to resist these terrific signs. But, that he may not on this account become discouraged in his work, he is told thus early that God himself will harden the heart of Pharaoh with his judgments, for the purpose of bringing about the final glorious issue (Vid. the Comm. on Rom., Exodus 2:9). The three terms expressive of hardening, חזק, to make firm (Exodus 4:21), קשה, to make hard (Exodus 7:3), and כבּד, to make heavy or blunt (Exodus 10:1), denote a gradual progress. The first term occurs, it is true, as the designation of the fundamental notion, when the hardening has an entirely new beginning, and a new scope (Exodus 14:4; Exodus 14:17). It is rightly brought forward as a significant circumstance by Hengstenberg, Keil, and others, that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is ten times ascribed to God, and ten times to himself. Pharaoh’s self-determination has the priority throughout. The hardening influence of God presupposes the self-obduration of the sinner. But God hardens him who thus hardens himself, by furthering the process of self-obduration through the same influences which would awaken a pious spirit. This he does as an act not merely of permission, but of judicial sovereignty. Vid. Keil, p. 453 sqq.

Exodus 4:23. Israel is my son, my first-born. Comp. Deuteronomy 14:1-2; Hosea 11:1. The doctrine of the Son of God here first appears in its typical germinal form. Keil makes the choosing of Israel begin with Abraham, and excludes from it the fact of creation, as well as the spiritual generation, so that there remains only an election of unconditional adoption and of subsequent education, or ethical creation. But the application of these abstractions to the Christology of the N. T. would perhaps be difficult. Vid. Com. on Romans 45:8. The expression, first-born son, suggests the future adoption of other nations. I will slay thy son. This threat looks forward to the close of the Egyptian plagues.

Exodus 4:24. Seemingly sudden turn of affairs. Yet it is occasioned by a previous moral inconsistency, which now for the first time is brought close to the prophet’s conscience. He who is on his way to liberate the people of the circumcision, has in Midian even neglected to circumcise his second son Eliezer. The wrath of God comes upon him in an attack of mortal weakness, in a distressing deathly feeling (Job 19:90). Probably Zipporah had opposed the circumcision of Eliezer; hence she now interposes to save her husband. She circumcises the child with a stone-knife (more sacred than a metallic knife, on account of tradition); but she is still unable to conceal her ill-humor, and lays the foreskin at his feet with the words: “A bridegroom of blood art thou to me.”

Exodus 4:26. Zipporah seems to be surly about the whole train of circumcisions. Probably Moses is thereby led to send her with the children back to her father to remain during the remainder of his undertaking. For not until his return to the peninsula of Sinai does his father-in-law bring his family to him.

Exodus 4:27. On the one hand, Moses is freed from a hindrance, which is only obscurely hinted at, by the return of Zipporah; on the other hand, a great comfort awaits him in the coming of his brother Aaron to meet him.

Exodus 4:29. They went.—This is the journey from Horeb to Egypt.

Exodus 4:30-31. The elders of the people, after hearing Aaron’s message, and seeing his signs, believingly accept the fact of Jehovah’s commission, and bow adoringly before His messengers. Thereby the people organized themselves. They accepted the vocation of being the people of Jehovah.

Footnotes:

[1][On this point comp. under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.].

[2][The A. V. also softens the expression by using the phrase “instead of,” whereas the Hebrew would more exactly be rendered, “He shall be a mouth to thee, and thou shalt be a God to him.” We have here language similar to, and illustrated by, that in Exodus 7:1, “See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” As the prophet (προφήτης one who speaks for another) is the spokesman (mouth) of God, so Aaron is to receive and communicate messages from Moses. Tr.].

[3][Lange’s language is: “ Keil lässt die Erwählung Israels mit Abraham anfangen, und schliesst von ihr aus auf die Thatsache der Schöpfung,” etc. In translating we have ignored the preposition “ auf,” which, if recognized, would require the sentence to read: “Keil … infers from it [the choosing of Israel] the fact of creation,” etc. But this would certainly be a misrepresentation of Keil, even if it would convey any clear sense in itself. We conclude that “ auf” is inserted by a typographical error. Tr.].

[4][The text and the commentary both leave it somewhat doubtful whether these words are addressed to Moses or the child; but there can be little doubt that Moses is the one. The meaning is that Moses had been well-nigh lost to her by disease. She regains him by circumcising the son; but the bloody effect excites her displeasure, and by the saying, “A bridegroom of blood art thou to me,” she means that she has, as it were, regained him as a husband by the blood of her child. Tr.].

[5][Chap.4.Exodus 2:4. We have ventured to follow the Vulg., Luther, Cranmer, the Geneva Version, De Wette, Glaire, and Kalisch, in this rendering; for, though grammatically the reading of the A. V. in more natural, yet it is difficult to see the force of the question, “Is not Aaron thy brother?” Fürst, Arnheim, and Murphy, try to avoid the difficulty by rendering, “Is there not Aaron, thy brother, the Levite?” etc. This, however, is putting in what is not in the original. Bush, following Rashi, translates, “Is not Aaron thy brother, the Levite?” and understands the question to intimate that, in consequence of Moses’ reluctance to obey the divine commission, the priesthood, which otherwise would have been conferred on him, will be given to Aaron. As nothing is said about the priesthood, it is hard to see how the phrase “the Levite,” at this time, before any priesthood bad been established, could have been understood in this way. Knobel, translating in the same way, understands it as pointing forward to the duty of the priests to give public instruction. But the same objection lies against this, as against the previous explanation; Moses was a Levite as much as Aaron was. Lange, translating also the same way, understands the meaning to be: Aaron is a more genuine Levite than Moses. But in this case the definite article is quite out of place; and even without it such a thought would be very obscurely expressed. Keil, following Baumgarten, finds the significance of the question in the etymological meaning of לֵוִי, viz., to join, associate one’s-self to. This certainly has the advantage of suggesting a reason for the use of the phrase “the Levite,” which on other theories seems to be superfluous. But the definite article is out of place on this hypothesis also. Besides, as the special point here is Aaron’s ability to talk, the notion of association is not just the one needed to be suggested by the term, to say nothing of the subtlety of the mode of conveying either conception. Tr.].

[6][Exodus 4:18. אֵלְכָה־נָא is not to be understood as a request, as the A. V. seems to imply, especially by the phrase, “I pray thee,” which corresponds to נָא. We have exactly the same form in Exodus 3:3, where Moses said אָסֻרָה־נָא “I will turn aside,” or, “Let me turn aside.”—Tr.].

[7][Exodus 4:23. וָאֹמַר and וַתְּמָאֵן are most naturally to be rendered as preterites. It is very doubtful whether וַתְּמָאֵן can be taken as protasis to the following clause. The translation of the A. V. and of others, seems to have been prompted by the idea that this is the opening message to Pharaoh. But the threat to kill the first-born was in reality the last one made. The declaration, Exodus 4:21, covers all the first part of the efforts of Moses to secure the deliverance of the people. In spite of all the plagues and signs, Pharaoh “will not let the people go.” Therefore (Exodus 4:22) Moses is to make his final appearance, and threaten the death of the first-born because of Pharaoh’s past refusal to obey. Tr.].

[8][Exodus 4:28. שָׁלַח may take a double accusative, as e.g. in 2 Samuel 11:22; 1 Kings 14:6. As Kalisch observes, “the usual translation, who had sent him, is languid in the extreme.”—Tr.].

[9][Exodus 4:31. Knobel, following the reading ἐχάρη, of the LXX., would change וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ into וַיִּשְׂמְחוּ. There seems to be strong reason for the change. The people, according to the present text, seem to believe, before hearing. Moreover, we have, as Knobel points out, another almost unmistakable instance of the same error. The narrative in 2 Kings 20:13 is identical with that in Isaiah 39:2, with the exception that the first passage has וַיִּשְׁמַע where the second has וַיִּשְׂמַח. The LXX. has here, too ἐχάρη in both cases. In reference to 2 Kings 20:13, Keil says that “וַיִּשְׁמַע seems to be an error of transcription for וַיִּשְׂמַח,” though he says of Knobel’s conjecture concerning the verse before us, that it is “without ground.” If we adopt the amended reading, we translate, “and they rejoiced because Jehovah had visited,” etc.—Tr.].