Exodus 4:24

And it came to pass by the way, in the inn,.... As Moses and his family were travelling in their way to Egypt, at an inn where they stopped for the refreshment of themselves and cattle, or in order

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Inn - Hebrew, the inn; a halting-place for the night.

Met him, i.e. appeared to him in some visible shape, and sought to kill him. Whom? Moses, spoken of and to before. He offered and endeavoured to kill him, either by inflicting some sudden and dangerous disease or stroke upon him, or by showing himself in some threatening posture, possibly as the angel did to Balaam, and afterwards to David, with a drawn sword in his hand, ready to give him a deadly blow. The reason of this severity was not Moses’ s distrust of God, or delay in his journey, nor the bringing of his wife and children along with him, (which it was convenient for him to carry with him, both that his father might not think he intended to desert them, and for the greater assurance and encouragement of the Israelites, when they saw that he exposed his dearest relations to the same hazards with them all,) but the neglect of circumcising his child, which also the Lord some way or other signified to Moses and Zipporah, as plainly appears, 1. From Zipporah’ s following fact upon that occasion. 2. From the Lord’ s dismission of Moses upon the circumcision of the child. 3. From the threatening of death, or cutting off, for this sin, , which, because there was now no magistrate to do it, God himself offers to execute it, as he sometimes saith he would do that in case. And this was a greater Sin in Moses than in another man, and at this time than it had been before, because he understood the will and law of God about it better than any man, and God had lately minded him of that covenant of his with Abraham, &c., whereof circumcision was a seal; the blessings and benefits of which covenant Moses was now going to procure for himself and for his people, whilst he remained under the guilt of grossly neglecting the condition of it. Besides, 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 instructer of the Israelites, whose duty it was to acquaint them with their duty of circumcising their children, and, as far as he could, to punish the wilful neglect of it, 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? . And this was not only a great sin in itself, but a great scandal to the Israelites, who might by this great example easily be led into the same miscarriage; and moreover might not without colour of probability suspect the call of such a person, and conclude that God would not honour that man who should continue in such a visible contempt of his law. And therefore it is no wonder that God was so angry at Moses for this sin. Quest. How came Moses to neglect this evident duty? Answ.

Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.Ver. 24. And sought to kill him.] To do justice upon him, according to Genesis 17:14, and as upon one that was an unfit man to take care of the Church, having no better ordered his own house. God passeth not by the sins of his best children without a sensible check, especially if scandalous and committed against conscience. He hath much ado to forbear killing us in such cases: he is even ready to have a blow at us, and cries like a travailing woman, who bites in her pain while she can, to be delivered of his judgments.

(24) In the inn.—There would not be any “inn,” as we understand the word, in the Sinaitic peninsula. Probably there would not even be a caravanserai. Nothing more is meant by mβlon than a recognised resting-place. The Lord met him.—The LXX. have ἄγγελοςκυρίου, “an angel of the Lord; “and so the Targum of Onkelos and the Arabic versions. But the existing Hebrew text is probably correct. God met Moses, i.e., visited him with a sharp attack of illness, which threatened to be fatal. Both he and his wife seem at once to have concluded that the visitation was a punishment, on account of their having neglected to circumcise their new-born son. Perhaps Moses had an intimation from God to that effect.

Verse 24. By the way in the inn] See Clarke on Genesis 42:27. The account in this and the following verse is very obscure. Some suppose that the 23d verse is not a part of the message to Pharaoh, but was spoken by the Lord to Moses; and that the whole may be thus paraphrased: "And I have said unto thee, (Moses,) Send forth שלח shallach, my son, (Gershom, by circumcising him,) that he may serve me, (which he cannot do till entered into the covenant by circumcision,) but thou hast refused to send him forth; behold, (therefore,) I will slay thy son, thy first-born. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, (when he was on his journey to Egypt,) that Jehovah met him, and sought (threatened) to kill him (Gershom.) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut away the foreskin of her son, and caused it to touch his feet, (Jehovah's, who probably appeared in a bodily shape; the Septuagint call him the Angel of the Lord,) and said unto him, A spouse by blood art thou unto me. Then he (Jehovah) ceased from him (Gershom.) Then she said, A spouse by blood art thou unto me, because of this circumcision." That is, I who am an alien have entered as fully into covenant with thee by doing this act, as my son has on whom this act has been performed. The meaning of the whole passage seems to be this: - The son of Moses, Gershom or Eliezer, (for it does not appear which,) had not been circumcised, though it would seem that God had ordered the father to do it; but as he had neglected this, therefore Jehovah was about to have slain the child, because not in covenant with him by circumcision, and thus he intended to have punished the disobedience of the father by the natural death of his son. Zipporah, getting acquainted with the nature of the case and the danger to which her first-born was exposed, took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son. By this act the displeasure of the Lord was turned aside, and Zipporah considered herself as now allied to God because of this circumcision. According to the law, (Genesis 17:14,) the uncircumcised child was to be cut off from his people, so that there should be no inheritance for that branch of the family in Israel. Moses therefore, for neglecting to circumcise the child, exposed him to this cutting off, and it was but barely prevented by the prompt obedience of Zipporah. As circumcision was the seal of that justification by faith which comes through Christ, Moses by neglecting it gave a very bad example, and God was about to proceed against him with that severity which the law required.

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.).

In the inn - Or “resting place.” See Genesis 42:27 note. Met him, and sought to kill him - Moses was attacked by a sudden and dangerous illness, which he knew was inflicted by God.

24-26. It came to pass… in the inn — An incident which transpired at some well-known halting-place on the road (the lodging-place) is so briefly related as to have occasioned much doubt and perplexity to all interpreters.