John Calvin Commentary Exodus 2:1

"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.