The Pulpit Commentaries
Exodus 4:24-26
EXPOSITION
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 Exodus 4:24-2 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 (Genesis 17:10-1). 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.
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 (Numbers 22:31). Still, it is quite possible that nothing more than an illness is meant.
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 (Joshua 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.
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
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 Genesis 17:10-1.) 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 matter—perhaps 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" (James 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
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 simple—a 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: Exodus 4:24-2. [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 (Exodus 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: Exodus 4:27, Exodus 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, Exodus 4:27; to Aaron he can give his confidence, Exodus 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
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 blameless—guiltless of gross neglect of Divine commandments; taught also that service of God must be whole-hearted—that in the way of duty there is to be no conferring with flesh and blood—no pleasing of men at the cost of unfaithfulness to God. "He that loveth father or mother," etc. (Matthew 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 conditions—a 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 (Genesis 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 stroke—that the trouble would have had a different ending—everything 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
Neglect of the covenant on its human side.
In Genesis 17:1. 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, and—when 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 it—that 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.