Exodus 2:21,22; Exodus 4:18-20; 24-26
And Moses was content to dwell with the man [Jethro]: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.
And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace. And the LORD said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life. And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand…And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then 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 art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
C. H. MACKINTOSH (1820-1896): This passage lets us into the personal domestic history of Moses.
MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): It must be remembered that Moses lived forty years in Midian. Moses was content. And so his present and temporary repose there is turned into a settled habitation. Moses married Zipporah not instantly, but after some years of acquaintance with the family, as may probably be gathered from the youngness and uncircumcision of one of his sons forty years after this.
A. W. PINK (1886-1952): At last, in obedience to God’s command, Moses goes forth rod in hand, and accompanied by his wife and his sons, to return to the land of Egypt. But one other thing needed to be attended to, an important matter long neglected, before he is ready to act as God’s ambassador. Jehovah was about to fulfill His covenant engagement to Abraham, but the sign of that covenant was circumcision, and this the son of Moses had not received.
MATTHEW POOLE: How came Moses to neglect this evident duty?
A. W. PINK: Apparently, because of the objections of the mother.
JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): Moses, to please Zipporah, displeased God, and it went hard with him.
MATTHEW POOLE: This was probably the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, while Moses was too indulgent of her.
ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): A very wise and very holy man has given his judgment on this point: “A man who is truly pious, marrying with an unconverted woman, will either draw back to perdition, or have a cross during life.”
JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): He had not omitted his son’s circumcision from forgetfulness, or ignorance, or carelessness only, but because he was aware that it was disagreeable either to his wife or to his father-in-law. Therefore, lest his wife should quarrel with him, or his father-in-law trouble him, he preferred to gratify them than to give occasion for divisions, or enmity, or disturbance. In the meantime, however, for the sake of the favour of men he neglected to obey God. This false dealing was no light offense, since nothing is more intolerable than to defraud God of his due obedience, in order to please men.
MATTHEW HENRY: We have need to watch carefully over our own hearts, lest fondness for any relation prevail above our love to God, and take us off from our duty to Him.
THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): How apt we are to yield to the foolish fondness of others, even to the offending of God…How dangerous is absence from the people of God, and the means of grace!
MATTHEW HENRY: Even good men are apt to cool in their zeal for God and duty when they have long been deprived of the society of the faithful: solitude has its advantages, but they seldom counterbalance the loss of Christian communion.
JOHN CALVIN: By this example we are warned that we have daily need of God’s help to support our strength, lest our courage should fail us, and our zeal should gradually grow cold or lukewarm; for Satan is constantly devising many temptations, by which he may either destroy or lessen our diligence.
A. W. PINK: Whether the Lord Himself in a theophanic manifestation now appeared to Moses, or whether it was an angel of the Lord with sword in hand, as he later stood before Balaam, we are not told. Nor do we know in what way the Lord sought to kill Moses.
MATTHEW HENRY: God takes notice of, and is much displeased with, the sins of His own people. If they neglect their duty, let them expect to hear of it by their consciences, and perhaps to feel from it by cross providences: for this cause many are sick and weak, as some think Moses was here.
A. W. PINK: It seems clear that he was stricken down and rendered helpless, for his wife was the one who performed the act of circumcision on their son. This is all the more striking because the inference seems inescapable that Zipporah was the one who had resisted the ordinance of God—only thus can we explain her words to Moses, and only thus can we account for Moses here sending her back to her father, Exodus 18:2.
MATTHEW POOLE: “Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.” Zipporah both repeats and amplifies her former censure, and reproacheth not only her husband, but also God’s ordinance; which perverse and obstinate spirit her husband observing in her, and wisely forecasting how much disturbance she might give him in his great and difficult work in Egypt, he thought fit to send her and her children back to her father, (see Exodus 18:2-4).
JOHN TRAPP: She was troublesome with her peevishness, and a hindrance to the good work in hand.
JOHN CALVIN: It is worthy of observation, that whereas Moses had two sons with him, mention is here only made of one; from whence is deduced the probable conjecture that one of the two was circumcised. Some think that the eldest son was not circumcised, because Moses had not dared to confess his religion so soon, to awaken hatred on account of it. But I should rather imagine that when, in regard to his first son, he had experienced the hostility of his family, he omitted it in the case of the second son, to avoid the anger of his wife or his father-in-law; for if, in the lapse of time, he had attained more courage, he would not have hesitated to correct the former omission; but, worn out by domestic quarrels, he at last departed from his duty.
H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): We are distinctly told in 2 Corinthians 6:14 that we are not to be “unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” If you are a Christian and unmarried, and you have never thought this through, take this principle to heart. If you ever contemplate marriage, put it out of your mind at once that you might possibly marry somebody who is unsaved. That would be positive disobedience to the Word of God.
A. W. PINK: Nevertheless, it was Moses, the head of the house—the one God holds primarily responsible for the training and conduct of the children—and not Zipporah, whom the Lord sought to kill. Observe how the above incident teaches us another most important lesson in connection with service. Before God suffered Moses to go and minister to Israel, He first required him to set his own house in order.
MATTHEW POOLE: What could be more absurd than that he should come to be a lawgiver, who lived in a manifest violation of God’s law? or that he should be the chief ruler and instructor of the Israelites, whose duty it was to acquaint them with their duty of circumcising their children, and yet at the same time be guilty of the same sin? or that he should undertake to govern the church of God, that could not well rule his own house? Therefore it is no wonder that God was so angry at Moses for this sin.
THOMAS COKE: Learn from this account that God’s people will not escape His anger, when they offend Him. When we have neglected duty, we must return to it without delay. The removal of our sins will usually alleviate or remove our judgments.
