[And He Walks With Me] Exodus 4
1-9 Instead of immediately agreeing to take the job, Moses here began to itemize the challenges. It is one thing to say you have a mission from God, but it is an entirely different matter to convince others of the same. Moses knew that he would be seen as an outsider by the Hebrews, and the last time he attempted to relieve them of their oppression, he killed an Egyptian and the Israelites rejected him. It was not unreasonable, then, to assume it would require a bit more than a namedrop to convince all of Israel. Therefore, he asked, What if they won’t believe me and will not obey me…? Superficially, it was a pertinent question, but notice that his focus was on himself. He apparently missed the part of 3:12 where God promised, I will certainly be with you and 3:16-22 where he made clear that he would do the heavy lifting for this undertaking. Essentially, Moses was asking God for a sign before he obeyed on faith.
Graciously, God responded to Moses’ request for one compelling sign with three. The first was a staff that became a snake when Moses threw it on the ground and became a staff when he caught it again. Then, just in case they will not believe you and will not respond to the evidence of the first sign, he provided a second: the ability to put his hand inside his cloak and bring it out either diseased or clean like the rest of his skin. Finally, he would be able to transform the water you take from the Nile into blood on the ground. Whether this was to be literal blood is unclear, but there is no reason in the text to think otherwise.
10-12 Despite the three signs God provided – including two which were demonstrated on the spot – Moses continued to focus on the challenges by pointing out why he would not be an ideal candidate for the job. Again, his focus was on himself rather than God. In this case, Moses cited his lack of eloquence. Some scholars have speculated he may have stuttered, but the exact nature of the problem here is unclear. God’s response pointed out the ridiculousness of this question, especially after the three signs just provided. Moses knew the story of creation. No doubt, he heard it from his mother even as she nursed him in Pharaoh’s household. God’s response also hinted that Moses’ deficiency was likely not the real issue here.
13-17 Finally, Moses comes to his point: Please, Lord, send someone else. Whether it was fear of what the Egyptians would do to him, fear of how the Israelites would respond to his leadership, comfort with the status quo, or his own inadequacy, Moses did not want to go.
Finally, God’s patience approached its end, and his anger burned against Moses. Instead of smiting Moses, however, God agreed to send Moses’ brother Aaron as a spokesperson. One wonders if this was an accommodation or the plan all along. Regardless, Aaron’s positive contribution to the cause would be at least partially overshadowed by his spectacular failures (see Exodus 32; Numbers 12).
18-26 This scene is reminiscent of Jacob’s return from Laban’s household recorded in Genesis 31. Typically in ANE cultures, a woman left her family and joined the household of her husband, but both Jacob and Moses left their households and joined the families of their fathers-in-law. Thus, they both required permission from the father-in-law to depart. However, several contrasts between the scene may be drawn. In Jacob’s case, Laban was crooked and tried again to cheat Jacob into remaining. In Moses’ case, however, Jethro bid him to Go in peace. The difference between the ungodly Laban and the godly Jethro highlights the importance of a faithful family. In Jacob’s case, the person who wanted him dead, his brother Esau, was still alive because Jacob needed to seek forgiveness and reconciliation. In Moses’ case, the men who wanted to kill you are dead. This and other elements of this passage hint that Moses’ killing of the Egyptian taskmaster was in God’s eyes justified, but probably more importantly, there was to be no reconciliation between Moses and the Egyptians. While on the trip, at an overnight campsite, the Lord confronted [Moses]. This is again reminiscent of the night when God came to Jacob and the two wrestled through the night. In both cases, the encounter with God was a chance for the men to commit themselves fully to God and his plan. Jacob left his encounter with a touched hip, and Moses walked away a circumcised son, as tangible reminders of their commitments to God. However, God’s confrontation of Moses may also be compared to Laban’s confrontation of Jacob. In Jacob’s case, his wife Rachel had taken Laban’s idols and hidden them under herself. Rachel did not return those idols (Genesis 31:35), signaling that her spiritual loyalty was going to be divided and, consequently, the family would have trouble. In Moses’ case, however, the issue was that at least one of his sons was uncircumcised. Some commentators speculate Moses may have wanted to circumcise his son, but as a Gentile, Zipporah refused, and since they were living in her father’s household, Moses conceded.[21] This is plausible, but given Moses’ response to God’s call in vs 13 (i.e., Please, Lord, send someone else), it may also be plausible that this was a test of both Moses’ and Zipporah’s commitment to the Lord. That is, the couple was still only nominally committed to following God, and this was the prompt they needed to decide whether they were all in or all out. Indeed, godly leaders must be all in to have maximum impact and advance God’s kingdom. To her credit, Zipporah responded quickly and, in doing so, “saved Moses’s life and the whole project of redemption.”[22]
27-31 In another confirming sign, at the same time God led Moses to return to Egypt, God also led Moses’ brother Aaron to escape to the mountain of God.
Given Moses’ concern that the elders of the Israelites and the rest of the people would not believe him, the ease with which they were convinced seems anticlimactic. However, it is important to remember they had nothing to lose. It is not difficult to convince people to do something initially, especially when it involves no immediate risk, effort, or sacrifice on their part. In this case, Moses would go to Pharaoh and ask for their freedom, and Moses would either succeed – in which case, they would be free – or fail – in which case, they would simply disavow Moses and allow him to bear the consequences alone. It is only when people begin to encounter the personal challenges of implementation and cost of realization that they will begin to resist.
[21] Adeyemo 2010, Exodus 4:24-26
[22] Sprinkle 2026, 46