Exodus 4 Study Notes

4:1-9 These three signs the Lord gave Moses pertain to areas of common human vulnerability—attack by other creatures, illness, and the need for water—all of which are under the sovereign power of the Lord. The signs begin a pattern in Exodus of actions that are intended to prompt faith and obedience.

4:2-4 Moses ordinarily would have used his staff to defend himself and his flock from snakes; now his staff became a snake. As Moses reached out, the tail would have been closest to him and, in fact, snakes are often picked up tail first.

4:6-7 Traditionally and in many translations, Moses’s disease has been called “leprosy,” though the Hebrew term used here covers a variety of severe afflictions, even problems found in garments and buildings (Lv 13-14; Nm 12:10; Dt 24:8-9; 2Kg 5; 2Ch 26:19-21). The descriptions in Leviticus do not match the symptoms of leprosy, a condition also called Hansen’s disease, that is caused by bacteria.

4:10-12 Moses’s next objection that his mouth and tongue were sluggish returned to the problem of his personal identity and unsuitability (2:14; 3:11), as if God were dependent on him. God’s answer returned attention to who he is and what he would do.

4:10 Moses began by saying he was not eloquent (lit “I am not a man of words”). Ironically, Moses used twenty-one Hebrew words arranged in somewhat complicated expressions to say that he could not speak well. He used a figure of speech referring to his mouth and tongue as “heavy” (lit “I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue”). The word for “heavy” also describes ears that do not hear (Is 6:10; 59:1; Zch 7:11) and eyes that do not see (Gn 48:10). One might think of a tool that is too heavy to be used easily and so impedes the efforts that it ought to assist.

4:11 The Lord answered by arguing from the greater to the lesser, implying that the Creator of all can deal with the problem of one. His rhetorical questions invited Moses to think and recognize that he was making a mistake by not viewing the situation from God’s point of view.

4:12 The Lord’s command and statement amount to a repeat of his promise to be with Moses (3:12). He applies it specifically to the problem of speaking, saying literally, “I will be with your mouth.”

4:13 Moses had offered many excuses not to do what God instructed—he was not adequate or prepared for the task (3:11), he wouldn’t know what to say to the Israelites or how to answer their questions (3:13), the Israelites might not believe God sent him (4:1), and he was not eloquent enough (4:10). But here he finally gets to the heart of the issue: he just didn’t want to do what God said. The irony of calling him Lord was not lost on Moses. God was right to be angry with him.

4:14-17 I will help both you and him repeats again God’s promise to be with Moses and applies it to Aaron as well. To help them speak well, God promised (lit), “I will be with your mouth and with his mouth.” The promise that God would teach Moses and Aaron what to say and do has NT parallels (Lk 12:11-12; Jn 14:26). The working relationship that the Lord described for Aaron and Moses was analogous to that of a prophet with God. Aaron would serve as Moses’s spokesman or messenger, and Moses would be like God for Aaron in telling him what to say to the people. Moses had complained of having a defective mouth; he would now have a new one to use.

4:18 Here Moses indicates his willingness to follow the Lord’s instructions.

4:19 This verse resumes God’s instruction to Moses (3:10) and adds some reassuring information.

4:20 This is the first mention of Moses’s two sons. Gershom was named in 2:22. The name of the second was “Eliezer” (18:3).

4:21-23 This introductory summary is matched by the similar concluding statement in 11:9-10 that “Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh.” So the signs Moses had been given and the use of the staff would apply to both the Israelites (4:1-9) and to Pharaoh to authenticate Moses’s message, although all the wonders would include the plagues Moses would announce as well. God informed Moses here not of what he was to say initially to Pharaoh but of the final result. In order to free the Lord’s firstborn son, Pharaoh’s firstborn son would have to die (11:4-8).

When he presented the matter as a formal declaration (This is what the Lord says), God framed the message as a demand from a king to an underling. In the language of ancient treaties and letters, when a king declared that someone was his son, respect for the superior rank and authority of the “father” was called for. The Lord was claiming that he, and not Pharaoh, had authority over Israel. The Lord was also demanding that Pharaoh show proper respect to the Lord by treating his “son” with respect. Everyone understood that failure to comply would call for severe penalties.

Such a demand to submit to the Lord would go entirely against the grain of Egyptian culture and beliefs about Pharaoh as a deity and the only king—inferior to no one. Making matters worse, Israel was being claimed as the “firstborn,” a position of privilege within ancient families that was obtained through birth order or by appointment (Gn 25:21-36; Dt 21:16-17; 1Ch 5:1-2; 26:10; Ps 89:27). In short, Pharaoh was informed that he was merely a vassal ruling a second-rate nation and must answer to the Lord.

Exodus uses three different Hebrew words for harden to describe what the Lord and Pharaoh himself did to his heart. The word here is especially associated with strength. Depending on the context, it could have a positive meaning (courage, steadfastness, Ps 27:14; 31:24) or a negative meaning (stubbornness, obstinacy, Ezk 2:4). When the Lord hardened hearts, it was a matter of executing judgment against confirmed rebels, not people who otherwise wanted to serve the Lord (Dt 2:30; Jos 11:20; Is 6:9-10; 63:17). It meant that Pharaoh would not listen and obey but would demonstrate that he deserved God’s judgment.

The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was especially appropriate as an attack on Egyptian beliefs. Egyptians valued a “hard heart,” since it was needed after death during judgment to testify on behalf of the dead individual rather than to admit wrongdoing. This terminology was also used to describe the ideal person in public life, who because of his “hard heart” would always appear firm and unshaken. When Pharaoh’s heart becomes hard in Exodus, however, he is not cool and in command, and the truth about his character becomes known.

4:24-26 Perhaps the statement that the Lord intended to put him to death expressed how the circumstances appeared to Moses and Zipporah. It was apparent to Zipporah what had to be done, and nothing is said about what would have happened if she had failed to act. Circumcision was performed in Egypt when boys were fourteen years of age. However, circumcision on the eighth day had been commanded of Abraham as the sign of God’s covenant (Gn 17:1-14; 21:4). Moses’s failure to circumcise his son shows that Moses had not been acting like a member of the covenant community, a serious offense. In contrast with the custom in Egypt—where a boy’s circumcision was associated with coming into manhood—performing circumcision on the eighth day of an infant’s life would naturally have involved his mother, who would closely care for the infant. So every Israelite wife and mother of a son would have thus been reminded of the covenant between God and Israel. Now because Moses had neglected the circumcision of at least one of his sons, Zipporah suddenly was involved. If Moses was to speak for Abraham’s God, who was in the process of keeping his covenant promises, Moses needed to observe the sign of that covenant.

When Zipporah said, You are a bridegroom of blood to me! she may have meant that her action of bloodshed saved her husband’s life, or that the ceremonial act effectively made her a close relative.

4:27-28 This summary parallels the one in 18:8.

4:27-31 The Israelites responded to Aaron and Moses with belief and worship, rather than with the skepticism that Moses had expected (3:13). This was a sign of God’s faithfulness to his chosen servant.