John Calvin Commentary Exodus 2
John Calvin Commentary
Exodus 2
John Calvin Commentary
Exodus 2
"And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi." — Exodus 2:1 (ASV)
And there went. I have preferred rendering the verb in the pluperfect tense (abierat, “there had gone”) to prevent all ambiguity. For unless we say that Miriam and Aaron were the children of another mother, it would not be probable otherwise that this marriage was contracted after the passing of the edict.
Aaron was three years old when Moses was born; and we may easily conjecture that he was brought up openly and securely. But there is no doubt that the cruelty was greatest at its commencement. Therefore, if they were uterine brothers, there is no other explanation except to say that, by the figure called ὕστερον πρότερον, he now relates what had happened before.
But mention is only made of Moses, because it then first began to be criminal to raise male infants. The Hebrews use the word for going or departing to signify the undertaking of any serious or momentous matter, or when they put any proposal into operation.
Nor is it superfluous for Moses to say that his father married a wife of his own tribe, because this double tie of kindred should have confirmed them in their attempt to preserve their offspring. But soon afterwards we shall see how timidly they acted.
They hid the child for a short time, rather from a transient impulse of love than from firm affection. When three months had elapsed, and that impulse had passed away, they almost abandoned the child in order to escape from danger.
For although the mother would probably have come the next day, if he had passed the night there, to give him the breast, yet she exposed him as an outcast to innumerable risks. By this example, we perceive what terror had taken possession of every mind, when a man and his wife, united to each other by close natural relationship, preferred exposing their common offspring, whose beauty moved them to pity, to the peril of wild beasts, of the atmosphere, of the water, and of every kind, rather than perish with him.
But on this point, different opinions are maintained: whether or not it would have been better to give up the care of their child, or to await whatever danger attended its secret preservation. I confess, indeed, that while it is difficult in such perplexities to come to a right conclusion, so also our conclusions are apt to be variously judged; still, I affirm that the timidity of the parents of Moses, by which they were induced to forget their duty, cannot justifiably be excused.
We see that God has implanted even in wild and brute beasts such great instinctive anxiety for the protection and cherishing of their young that the mother animal often disregards her own life in their defense. Therefore, it is all the more shameful that humans, created in the divine image, should be driven by fear to such a pitch of inhumanity as to desert the children who are entrusted to their fidelity and protection.
The reply of those who assert that there was no better course in their desperate circumstances than to rely on the providence of God has some merit, but is not complete. It is the chief consolation of believers to cast their cares on the bosom of God, provided that, in the meantime, they perform their own duties, do not overstep the bounds of their calling, and do not turn away from the path set before them. But it is a perversion to make the providence of God an excuse for negligence and sloth.
The parents of Moses ought rather to have looked forward with hope that God would be the safeguard of themselves and their child. His mother made the ark with great pains and daubed it; but for what purpose? Was it not to bury her child in it? I acknowledge that she always seemed anxious for him, yet in such a way that her proceedings would have been ridiculous and ineffectual unless God had unexpectedly appeared from heaven as the author of their preservation, of which she herself despaired.
Nevertheless, we must not judge either the father or mother as if they had lived in quiet times. For it is easy to imagine with what bitter grief they took actions that risked their child's death; indeed, to speak more correctly, we can scarcely imagine what terrible agonies they suffered.
Therefore, when Moses relates how his mother made and prepared an ark, he hints that the father was so overwhelmed with sorrow as to be incapable of doing anything. Thus the power of the Lord more clearly manifested itself when the mother, her husband being entirely disheartened, took the whole burden on herself.
For if they had acted in concert, Moses would not have assigned the whole praise to his mother. The Apostle, indeed (Hebrews 11:23), gives a share of the praise to the husband, and not undeservedly, since it is probable that the child was not hidden without his cognizance and approval.
But God, who generally chooses the weak things of the world, strengthened with the power of his Spirit a woman rather than a man to stand foremost in the matter.
And the same reasoning applies to his sister, into whose hands his mother resigned the last and most important act, so that while Miriam, who on account of her tender age appeared to be exempt from danger, was appointed to watch over her brother’s life, both parents appear to have neglected their duty.
"And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months." — Exodus 2:2 (ASV)
And when she saw that he was a goodly child. There is no doubt that God had adorned him with this beauty to influence his parents more to preserve him.
It sometimes happens that when God sees His people slow in performing their duty, He spurs on their inactivity with enticements.
Although it appears from the testimony of the Apostle that this was not their only motive to pity him, it was also the support, as it were, of their weak faith. For he tells us (Hebrews 11:23) that by faith Moses was hid three months of his parents.
If anyone objects that faith and regard for beauty are things not only very different but almost contrary to each other, I reply that by the wonderful compassion of God, it happens that the very impediment which might darken faith becomes its assistant, though faith should indeed rest upon the promises alone.
Therefore, if faith had shone purely and brightly in their hearts, they would have cared nothing for his beauty. On the other hand, unless the promise had its power, indeed, unless it had occupied the first place, there was no such efficacy in the beauty of his appearance as would have led them willingly to risk their lives.
We conclude, then, that since they had good hopes of the deliverance promised to them, their courage was increased by the additional motive of his beauty, and they were so attracted to pity that all obstacles were overcome.
Thus God ordinarily works, leading His people in their darkness like the blind when they are wavering through ignorance and weakness of heart.
In short, the love which his beauty awakened was so far from being a part of faith that it deservedly detracts from its praise. But God, who in His wonderful wisdom makes all things work for the good of His chosen ones, sustained and strengthened their tottering faith by this support.
"And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him." — Exodus 2:4 (ASV)
And his sister stood afar off. It is probable that this was Miriam.26 Her standing to watch what became of him indicates that his parents still had some hope, though it was small. For there is little doubt that any Egyptian who had come that way would have been his executioner, both because of the king's command and the general hatred of the nation against the Hebrews. It seems, then, that Miriam was set by her parents to watch, rather to witness her brother’s murder than to provide for the child's safety.
But, as we have just seen that some sparks of faith still survived in the darkness of sorrow and despair, the mother, by exposing her little one on the river’s side, did not completely abandon care for him. Instead, she wished to entrust him to the mercy of any passer-by and therefore stationed her daughter at a distance to act as circumstances required. For if she had heard that the child was still lying there at night, she would have come secretly to nurse him. This plan, however, as is often the case in times of perplexity and trouble, proved futile, though God miraculously stretched forth His hand to preserve the child.
For there can be no doubt that His secret providence brought the king’s daughter to the river, who had the courage to take up the child and have him nursed. Furthermore, He also influenced her mind toward the kind act of saving his life—in short, He controlled the entire situation. Indeed, all devout people will confess that He was the source of her great and unquestioning kindness in not taking greater care to find out who the child’s parents were, and why a nurse presented herself so quickly—a circumstance that might naturally have aroused suspicion. Thus, it was through many miracles that the child escaped safely from the ark.
Scoffers would say that all this happened by accident, because a perverse delusion possesses their minds, making them blind to the manifest works of God, and they believe that the human race is governed by mere chance. But we must hold fast to the principle that while God rules all people by His providence, He honors His elect with His special care and is watchful for their deliverance and support. If we carefully consider all the circumstances, reason will readily assure us that all things which led to the preservation of Moses were arranged by His guidance, under His direction, and by the secret inspiration of His Spirit. For to attribute to fortune such a harmonious combination of diverse and numerous means is no less absurd than to imagine with Epicurus that the world was created by the fortuitous conjunction of atoms.27
Surely, He drew out Moses, who was to be the future redeemer of His people, as if from the grave, so that He might demonstrate that the beginning of the security of His Church was like a creation out of nothing. And this was the crowning act of His divine mercy: not only that he was given to his mother to be nursed, but that she also received wages for it.
26 “De laquelle il sera ci apres parle plus a plein;” who will presently be more fully spoken of. — Fr..
27 “De ce qui apparoist en l’air comme poussiere, quand le soleil luist, sans que Dieu s’en soit mesle;” of that which appears in the air, like dust, when the sun shines, without the interposition of God. — Fr..
"And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh`s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said, Because I drew him out of the water." — Exodus 2:10 (ASV)
And the child grew. Here, however, their grief was renewed when his parents were again obliged to give up Moses, and he was torn, as it were, from their innermost being. For on this condition he was transferred to the Egyptian nation: not only that he should be estranged from his own people, but also that he should, in his own person, increase the number of their enemies.
Indeed, it is hardly believable that he could have been long tolerated in the tyrant’s court and among the most cruel enemies of Israel, unless he professed to share their hatred. We know how full courts are of corrupting influences; it is also well known how great the pride of the Egyptians was, while experience teaches us how prone even the best natures are to yield to the temptations of pleasure. Therefore, we must wonder all the more that, when Moses was engulfed in these whirlpools, he still retained his uprightness and integrity.
Certainly, the hope of their redemption might seem here again to suffer an eclipse, with all circumstances opposing it; but in this way, the providence of God, the more indirectly it seems to proceed, shines forth all the more wonderfully in the end, since it never truly wanders from its direct object or fails of its effect when its proper time has come.
Nevertheless, God, as with an outstretched hand, drew His servant back to Himself and to the body of His Church by embedding in his name the recollection of his origin. For the king’s daughter did not give him this name without the Spirit of God’s prior influence, so that Moses might know that he was drawn out of the river when he was about to perish. As often, then, as he heard his name, he necessarily had to remember from which people he originated; and the power of this stimulus must have been all the greater because the fact was known to everyone.
The king’s daughter, indeed, could by no means have intended this, and would have preferred for the memory of his origin to be lost. But God, who put words in the mouth of Balaam’s ass, also influenced this woman’s tongue to give loud and public testimony to the very thing she would have preferred to hide. And although she desired to keep Moses with herself, she became his directress and guide in returning to his own nation.
But if anyone is surprised that she did not fear her father’s anger in thus publicly recording the violation of his command, it can be readily answered that no offense was given to the tyrant. He would have willingly allowed any number of slaves to be born to him, provided that the name of Israel was abolished. For why did he spare the lives of the female infants, except so that Egyptian slaves might be born from them? And, regarding Moses in this light, he did not consider that his daughter’s act had violated his command; indeed, he rather rejoiced that the Israelite nation was thus diminished and the Egyptian nation numerically increased.
Only one question remains: namely, how it occurred to Pharaoh’s daughter to give Moses a Hebrew name,28 when it is certain from Psalm 81:5 that there was a great difference between the two languages: he went out through the land of Egypt, where I heard a language that I understood not? We also know that Joseph used an interpreter with his brothers when he pretended to be an Egyptian (Genesis 42:23).
We can probably conjecture that she asked Moses’ mother for the word that expressed this meaning. Alternatively, we might prefer to suppose that he had an Egyptian name, which was interpreted by his Hebrew one, and I am most inclined to think this was the case. When Moses later fled, he again took the name his mother gave him.
28 Calvin seems altogether to ignore the opinion of Philo, Clemens Alex., etc., that Moses was an Egyptian name, from Mo, or Moys, water, and Is, or Ises, or Hyse, , and Is, or Ises, or Hyse, preserved..
"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren." — Exodus 2:11 (ASV)
And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown. Now that faith which the Apostle celebrates began to show itself, when Moses, despising the pleasures and riches of the Court, chose rather to suffer the reproach of Christ than to be considered happy apart from companionship with the chosen people. It was not only love for his nation but also faith in the promises that induced him to undertake this charge, knowing that he would thereby incur the hatred of all the Egyptians. For although he did not immediately resign his wealth, and honorable station, and influence, and power, this was, as it were, the preparation for divesting himself of all these deceitful allurements.
This is why the Apostle says,
He refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter (Hebrews 11:24).
There is certainly no doubt that he avowed his desire to return to his true and natural kindred, from whom he had been separated. For we gather from the context that he did not come to see his brethren only to pity their condition, but to bring them some consolation and even to share their lot. Nor was the Court so near that he could daily visit them in his ordinary walk. And it is said that he went out the second day.
Therefore, he privately withdrew from the Court or, having asked permission, preferred to expose himself to enmity rather than not reveal his affectionate regard for his people. He relates that he looked on their burdens, or troubles, so that their unjust oppression must have naturally aroused him to give them help. He adds, too, another motive: that he saw an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew.
It is probable that they were harshly treated by their taskmasters if they were slow in their work. Since they were given over to the will of wicked men, it is also probable that anyone could exercise the same cruelty upon them with impunity.
Jump to: