Exodus 4
CambridgeExodus 4:1-9
1–9. Moses’ third difficulty: in spite of the assurance of Exo 3:18 a, the Israelites will perhaps not listen to him, or believe in his divine commission. To enable him to meet this contingency, he is endowed with the power of performing three signs, which may serve as credentials of his commission.
Exodus 4:2-5
2–5. The first sign.
Exodus 4:3
- a serpent] The marg. ‘Heb. nâḥ ?âsh’ is added for the purpose of shewing that the Heb. word used here is different from the one used in Exodus 7:10-12 (P); see the marg. there.
Exodus 4:6-8
6–8. The second sign. leprous, as white as snow] cf. Numbers 12:10, 2 Kings 5:27. was turned] an archaism for ‘turned’ (as Jeremiah 31:18-19; Jeremiah 34:15, and elsewhere: see the writer’s Parallel Psalter, p. 483). The Heb. verb, as in the passages quoted, is an intransitive one, and is rendered in 2 Kings 5:14 (in the same expression) ‘came again.’
Exodus 4:9
- The third sign, to be resorted to only if necessary. Water taker from the Nile, and poured upon the earth, to be turned into blood. the river (twice)] the Nile (Heb. ye’ôr): see on Exodus 1:22.
Exodus 4:10-17
10–17. Moses’ fourth difficulty: he objects that he is not fluent, has no power to state his case, to convince or persuade the Israelites. He is promised, in reply, firstly, that God will be with him to give him words, and afterwards, as he still demurs, that Aaron shall be his spokesman.
Exodus 4:11
- God gives man all his faculties; and therefore, it is implied, can give Moses fluency. The words are spoken in a tone of reproof.
Exodus 4:12
- God further promises that He will be with his mouth (cf. Exodus 3:12), and teach him always what to say. Cf., of prophets, Deuteronomy 18:18, Jeremiah 1:9.
Exodus 4:13
- Send, I pray thee, him whom thou wilt send, whoever it may be (for the idiom, see on Exodus 33:19). Moses assents, but unwillingly and ambiguously (cf. W. R. Smith [p. 40 n.], p. 163).
Exodus 4:14
- the Levite] As Moses, equally with Aaron, belonged to the tribe of Levi (Exodus 2:1), the term, as applied distinctively to the latter, must denote, not ancestry, but profession. There must have been a period in the history of the ‘Levites,’ when the term was (McNeile) the official title of one who had received the training of a priest, regardless of the tribe of which he was a member by birth’ (cf. Judges 17:7, where a member of the tribe of Judah is a ‘Levite’). See Moore, Judges, 383; McNeile, lxvi–lxviii. It was the duty of the priest to give tôrâh, or oral ‘direction,’ to the people (p. 79); hence some power of language might be presupposed in him. If the term has here, not a tribal sense, but the official sense just explained, there seed be no anachronism in its use. that he] unlike Moses. The pron. is emphatic. when he seeth thee, &c.] he will be glad, not only to meet thee, but also, it is implied, to cooperate with thee.
Exodus 4:15-16
15, 16. Aaron is to be, as it were, Moses’ prophet, and to speak the words which Moses places in his mouth,—in particular, the words contained in Exodus 3:16-17,—putting them in such a way, and supporting them with such arguments, as may satisfy the people of the reality of Moses’ commission. Cf. in P Exodus 7:1.
Exodus 4:16
- And he (emph.) shall be thy spokesman] Heb. shall speak for thee. as God] or as a god,—inspiring him, as God (or a god) inspired (or was supposed to inspire) a prophet.
Exodus 4:17-21
17–21. Here vv. 17–18, 20b–21 are assigned to E on account of their imperfect connexion with the context: Exodus 4:17 speaks of ‘the signs’ to be done with the rod, whereas only one sign to be performed with it has been enjoined in vv. 1–9; Exodus 4:21 mentions ‘portents’ to be done before the Pharaoh, whereas vv. 1–9 speak only of wonders to be wrought for the satisfaction of the people. Further, v. 19, from its contents, is not fitted to be the sequel of v. 18; it in fact states an alternative ground for Moses’ return into Egypt; and the name Jether (Jethro) makes it probable that v. 18 belongs to the same current of narrative as Exodus 3:1 and ch. 18 (i.e. E); hence v. 19 will be referred to J. V. 20b goes naturally with v. 17 (the rod). 17 (E). this rod, &c.] Not the rod of vv. 2–4 (with which only one sign was to be wrought), but the rod often mentioned in E as borne by Moses (v. 20b, Exodus 7:15; Exodus 7:17; Exodus 7:20, Exodus 9:23, Exodus 10:13, Exodus 14:16, Exodus 17:5; Exodus 17:9). In a previous part of E, which has not been preserved, it must have been told how Moses was equipped with a wonder-working rod, and what ‘the signs’ were which he was to perform with it before Pharaoh (so Di.).
Exodus 4:18-20
18–20. Moses prepares to return to Egypt.
Exodus 4:19
- That Moses should now be commanded by God to do what he has already both determined to do, and obtained Jethro’s permission to do, is remarkable; and, as Dillm. remarks, can only be explained by the fact that the verse is by a different narrator from v. 18 (viz. J)1[107]. [107] ‘Said’ cannot, consistently with Hebrew grammar, be interpreted to mean ‘had said.’which sought thy life] the Pharaoh and his servants (Exodus 2:15; Exodus cf.23).
Exodus 4:20
20a (J). his wife, &c.] according to E Moses went alone into Egypt, and was only joined by his wife and sons afterwards (Exodus 18:5). his sons] The birth of only one son has been hitherto mentioned (Exodus 2:22); and Exodus 4:25 suggests strongly that only one son was with Moses at the time: Di. and others are therefore probably right in thinking that we should read his son, the plural being an alteration due to an editor or scribe who thought that account should be taken of Exo 18:2-4. 20b (E). the rod of God] So Exodus 17:9, cf. on Exodus 4:17.
Exodus 4:21-23
21–23. A summary statement of what Moses is to do when he comes to negotiate with Pharaoh, of the failure of his first ‘portents’ to produce any effect upon him (v. 21), and of the threat which he is ultimately to hold out to him (v. 22 f.).
Exodus 4:22-23
22–23. The substance of the demand which Moses is to make of the Pharaoh, formulated with special reference to the final and severest plague, the 10th: Israel is Jehovah’s firstborn; if Pharaoh does not let Israel go, his own firstborn will be slain. The situation implied by these verses (‘have said,’ ‘hast refused’) is between the first nine plagues and the 10th; and so it has been conjectured, especially as this message to Pharaoh is never in the sequel actually given to him, that they originally stood before Exodus 10:28 (or Exodus 11:4), as J’s introduction to the 10th plague, and were removed here by the compiler, as an indication of the gist and purpose of the whole series of plagues.
Exodus 4:23
- that he may serve me] i.e. hold a religious service (‘serve,’ as in Exodus 3:12 and frequently), viz. in the wilderness: cf. (also in J) Exodus 7:16, Exodus 8:1; Exodus 8:20, Exodus 9:1; Exodus 9:13, Exodus 10:3.
Exodus 4:24-26
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. Genesis 2:4 to Genesis 3:24, Genesis 7:16, Genesis 11:5; Genesis 11:7 : see the writer’s Book of Genesis, pp. xx f., 35 f.).
Exodus 4:25
- a flint] in accordance with the oldest custom (cf. Joshua 5:2-3; Joshua 24:30 LXX.); because the practice of circumcision originate among peoples, or in an age, in which metal knives were either not yet in use, or used but rarely (Di.). and made it touch his feet] to connect him with what she had done, and make her son’s circumcision count as her husband’s. For the Heb., cf. Isaiah 6:7, Jeremiah 1:9. a blood-bridegroom] Originally the expression may have denote the bridegroom, as one who (see below) was himself circumcised. Here however it is used in the sense of a bridegroom secured to his wife by the circumcision of his son.
Exodus 4:26
- let him alone] Heb. relaxed from him: cf. Judges 11:37, Deuteronomy 9:14. Then she said (viz. when she spoke the words given in v. 25b), ‘A blood-bridegroom,’ with regard to circumcisions] The last word is plural in the Heb. ‘Blood-bridegroom’ was apparently a current expression: and the passage seems to attribute to Zipporah the new sense of it explained in the last note but one. It seems that in this narrative an archaic stage in the history of circumcision is referred to, which is not elsewhere mentioned in the OT. Circumcision is a rite which has been, and still is, largely practised in the world: among the Hebrews (besides its religious associations) its distinctive feature was that it was performed in infancy. Among the Arabs it is performed upon boys of ages varying, in different places, from 3 to 15; but in many parts of the world it is performed upon youths at the approach of puberty. A practice so widely diffused must rest upon some common principle: and the idea which appears generally to underlie circumcision is that it is a rite of initiation into manhood; a youth, till he has been circumcised, is not reckoned a full member of the tribe, or (as in Australia, for instance) allowed to marry. Now the fact that the Heb. word for ‘father-in-law’ (ḥ ?ôthçn) is derived from a root which in Arabic signifies to circumcise, seems to shew that it meant originally circumciser, and to indicate that in primitive times circumcision was among the Hebrews, as among the other nations just referred to, a general preliminary to marriage, which it was the duty of the future father-in-law to see enforced. These facts throw light upon the present narrative.
The reason why Moses had incurred Jehovah’s wrath was because he was not a ‘blood-bridegroom,’ i.e. because he had not, according to established custom, submitted to circumcision before marriage: Zipporah, seizing a flint, circumcises her son instead of her husband, and so makes the latter symbolically a ‘blood-bridegroom,’ and delivers him from the wrath of Jehovah. At the same time, the circumcision of male infants is explained as a more humane substitute for the original circumcision of young men before marriage (Wellh. Hist. p. 340; EB. ii. 830, 832; DB. v. 622a). On circumcision, see now very fully Hastings’ Encycl. of Rel. and Ethics, s.v.
Exodus 4:27-31
27–31. Moses and Aaron together communicate their commission to the people in Egypt, and are readily believed by them.
Exodus 4:28
- words … signs] the commission and promises of Exo 3:10-15; and the ‘signs’ of Exodus 4:17. There does not seem to be any reference to the part which Aaron is to play as Moses’ spokesman (Exodus 4:15-16 J).
Exodus 4:29-31
Exodus 29-31. Execution of the commands given in Exodus 3:16, Exodus 4:2-9.
Exodus 4:30
30a. Here Aaron appears as Moses’ spokesman, in accordance with vv. 15, 16 (J). 30b. and did] i.e. Aaron. But the Heb. is and he did, allowing reference to Moses, which is undoubtedly right (Di.). The ‘signs’ and those given to Moses in vv. 1–9.
Exodus 4:31
- The people believe in Moses’ commission, as Jehovah had assured him that they would do (Exodus 3:18 a, Exodus 4:8-9); and bow the heads in reverence and gratitude when they hear that Jehovah has visited (Exodus 3:16) His people. and when, &c.] Heb. and they heard …, and they bowed. LXX. for and they heard (ειωξςε) have and they rejoiced (ειωξηε); no doubt rightly.