2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thy hand? And he said, a A rod.

a ver. 17. 20,

2. What is that in thine hand? The drift of this question is simply to wake up and direct Moses' attention to the miracle about to be wrought. It is as if he had said, 'Take particular notice, and see that there is no illusion in the matter. Be sure that what you see is really what you take it to be.' When God questions his creatures it is not for the sake of learning, but of teaching.

3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent⚫ and Moses fled from before it.

that Moses was reluctant to be employ- its exhibition. In what this consisted ed on the embassy to Pharaoh and in- it may not be easy confidently to affirm. tended in these words to urge an ob- Calvin suggests with great plausibility, jection, but the phraseology appears to that the drift of it was to intimate the present it in a conditional form. Other- formidableness of Moses to Pharaoh, wise, it may be asked, on what au- notwithstanding his comparatively ab thority did he make the assertion? ject and despised condition. The staff How did he know that the elders would was the ensign of the shepherd's callnot believe him, when God had ex-ing, and what to human view more conpressly assured him, ch. 3. 18, that they temptible than a rustic keeper of sheep would? Would he adventure upon such coming forth from the desert, where he a pointed contradiction of the words of | had been accustomed to encounter only Jehovah? wild beasts of prey, and oppose his simple crook to the sceptre of a powerful king? Would not this be a very significant mode of teaching that however destitute of human means of intimidation, the shepherd of Midian should notwithstanding be rendered dreadful to a throned oppressor, when the rude staff that he carried in his hand should be a more destructive instrument than a thousand swords? His own affrightment on the occasion would tend to give him a deeper sense of the hidden power of that terror which Omnipotence could strike into the inmost spirit of his adversary, and he could not but infer that there was no need of numerous forces or great preparations when he carried in his hand an implement the bare sight of which was able to smite the monarch with consternation. It may be proper, however, to observe that the Jewish commentators are disposed to consider the serpent as representing Pharaoh rather than Moses. As the original nahash,

-T And he said, a rod. Heb. matteh, a rod, or staff, as it is rendered Gen. 38. 18; i. e. such a rod or crook as is used by shepherds in tending their flocks. Thus Mic. 7. 14, 'Feed thy people with thy rod the flock of thine heritage.' In v. 20, it is called the 'rod of God' from the miraculous effects which it was instrumental in working. Comp. v. 20.

3. And it became a serpent. Heb. 23 yehi lenahash, it became to a serpent. It will probably answer all the demands of the text to consider this as simply a miraculous sign intended to authenticate the mission of Moses. as remarked on Gen. 3. 1, is occasionWe are not required to seek or assign a ally interchanged with tannin, reason why this particular sign was dragon, the very word in fact which ocadopted rather than any other, yet we curs Ex. 7. 10, And Aaron cast down may without extravagance suppose that his rod before Pharaoh and before his there was some intrinsic adaptedness servants, and it became a serpent ( in the sign selected to the purpose of | tannin),' and as Pharaoh, king of

4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thy hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand :

5 That they may bbelieve that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,

b ch. 19. 9. c ch. 3. 15.

Egypt, is termed, Ezek. 29. 3, 'The great dragon ( tannim) that lieth in the midst of his rivers,' they suggest hat the rod converted into this reptilenonster, (perhaps the crocodile, as ightfoot believes), was designed to represent Pharaoh in all the terrors of his cruelty and oppression; while on the other hand his being seized by the hand of Moses, and converted into an innocuous rod, indicated the ease with which, under the mighty working of God, he should be subdued, despoiled of his power to harm, and even brought to confess himself to be at the mercy of Moses, as a rod is wielded by the hand of its possessor. Thus, Eliezer, a Jewish commentator: As the serpent biteth and killeth the sons of Adam, so Pharaoh and his people did bite and kill the Israelites; but he was turned and made like a dry stick.'

and the God of Jacob hath appeared unto thee.

6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous das snow.

d Numb. 12. 10. 2 Kings 5. 27.

ites, and of overawing the obstinacy of Pharaoh. The incident goes evidently on the ground that miracles are a certain and satisfactory proof of the divinity of the mission and doctrine of a prophet. They constitute the proper credentials of one sent of God. They are a divine testimony both to the commission of the messenger and to the truth of the message. The principle on which miracles are wrought is clear ly and distinctly recognised in the words of the woman of Sarepta to the prophet who had raised her son to life, 1 Kings, 17. 24, Now by this I know thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord by thy mouth is truth.' This is the language of nature and of common sense.

6. Put now thine hand into thy bosom, &c. That is, into the open part of the tunic, a long outer robe, above the gir 5. That they may believe, &c. The dle. The drift of this second sign was sentence is apparently imperfect, re- similar to that of the first, for with quiring some such preliminary clause, these miraculous voices 'God speaketh as 'Do this, that they may believe, &c.' once, yea twice,' though it is too often For a similar omission, and the manner the case that 'man regardeth it not.' As .1 which it is to be supplied, compare far as the intrinsic significancy of the M ırk, 14. 49, ' I was daily with you in the sign is concerned, it was evidently cal temple teaching, and ye took me not:culated to teach that whatever is now but the Scriptures must be fulfilled,' with Matt. 26. 55, 56, ‘I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.' The miracle was not only exhibited on this occasion to Moses, but the power conferred upon him of working it himself, both for the purpose of acquu ing credence among the Israel

vigorous, vital, and flourishing may at once be withered at the nod of Omnipotence; and again with equal facility restored to its pristine condition. The effect of a leprosy was to banish the subject of it from the abodes of men to solitary seclusion. As far as the miracle had relation to the person of Moses, an emblematic leprosy was upon him when he went out as a shunned and

7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again, and plucked it out of his bosom, and behold, eit was turned again as his other flesh.

e Deut, 32, 39 Numb, 12, 13, 14. 2 Kings

5. 14, Matt. 8. 3.

8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.

9 And it shall come to pass, it they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy

hated fugitive from the palace of Pha- port, meaning, drift, of the first sign. raoh, and led his flock over the rough, See Note upon the sense of the word sandy, and arid places of the Midian 'voice,' Gen. 21. 17. The sign is said desert, and among sapless thorns and to have a 'voice,' because it speaks thickets. After passing forty years in that to the eye which words do to the this desolate state, cast out as a with-ear. On the contrary, that which is ered branch, without name, without re- addressed to the ear is sometimes reprepute, without power, he suddenly re-sented as if exhibited to the eye; thus covers all he had lost, and comes forth as a messenger of God, clothed in all the honors of a divine commission. With a slight modification, the same sign may be considered as shadowing forth the contrast between the condition of the Israelites, wasted and worn out in their bondage, and the state of prosperity and glory to which they were about to be raised as the elect people of Heaven. This view is sufficient to show the pertinency of the sign, without requiring us to fix upon any more recondite import. It was plainly adapted to teach the general salutary lesson, that every thing human stands or falls, flourishes or fades, according to the good pleasure of God; that it is his prerogative to weaken and abase the stout, the hardy, the lofty, and his to restore the decayed and fallen to life, activity, and vigor.- ¶ Leprous as snow. As snow is not leprous, reference must be intended to the color of the flesh. Accordingly the Chal. has correctly, 'As white as snow.' This was the worst kind of leprosy, in which the body not only assumes the hue of dead and bloodless flesh, but becomes covered with white scales, attended with a most tormenting itch.

8. If they will not hearken to the voice of the first sign. That is, to the im

Gal. 3. 1, 'Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you ;' i. e. who have heard this fact declared in the preaching of the gospel. The Psalmist probably alludes to the phraseology of the text, Ps. 105. 27, They showed his signs among them.' Heb. 'They showed the words of his signs.' They were words spoken to the ear of reason, if not of sense. They will believe the voice of the latter sign. This is not perhaps to be understood as a positive affirmation, for the next verse intimates the possibility that they may require still farther evidence. The words appear designed to express the intrinsic adaptedness of the signs to produce belief, or the effect which might be reasonably anticipated from their exhibition. The circumstance strikingly shows the extent of the divine indulgence. The perverse rejection of the first sign alone would clearly show them unworthy of being favored with another. But God multiplies mercies, even when judg ments are most richly deserved. He gives sign upon sign, as well as line upon line.

9. Take of the water of the river. That is, of the river Nile. This, it would appear, was a miracle to be wrought for the confirmation of Moses' calling

voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land and fthe water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.

f ch. 7. 19.

before the Israelites and not before the Egyptians, for in that mentioned, ch. 7. 17, the waters in the river were to be turned into blood, here the water taken out of the river. The sign imported, perhaps, that the time was now at hand when God would judge the Egyptians for the death of the Hebrew infants, whose blood they had shed in the waters.

10. O my Lord, I am not eloquent. Heb. ish debarim, a man of words. Thus, Job, 11. 2, 'A man of lips,' i. e. a talkative man; Eng. 'a man full of talk.' Job, 22. 8,' Man of arm;' i. e. mighty man. Ps. 140. 11, 'man of tongue ;' i. e. prattler, or, perhaps, slanderer. The Gr. has ouk Kavos

| 10 ¶ And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

g ch. 6. 12. Jer. 1. 6.

But

general. See Note on Gen. 31. 2. Some have supposed that Moses labored under a natural defect of utterance, and that he declined the commanded service from an apprehension that the ef fect of his message might be defeated in the delivery of it. He is supposed therefore to intimate in the present passage, that as the infirmity of which he speaks had been of long standing, and as he perceived no alteration in himself for the better in this respect during the present interview, he knew not any reason to think that the difficulty was likely to be obviated; for if at this time, while God was speaking to him, who had power at once to remove all ειμι, I am not sufficient. We cannot impediment of speech, his defective but wonder at the backwardness of Mo- articulation continued, much more was ses, although we are forced to admire it likely to continue afterward. the fidelity of the historian in thus whether his objection was founded upon frankly recording his own incredulity this, or upon the want of that ready and and perverseness. Though it is doubt- copious command of language which less true that nothing becomes a man constitutes the powerful orator, we have so much as humility, yet diffidence may not the means of ascertaining. He was degenerate into distrust, and carry us soon however taught that he who made into a criminal disobedience of the posi- the mouth could make eloquent.tive commands of God. He who calls T Slow of speech and of a slow tongue. us into the field of action can give us Heb. 1737 kebad peh u both wisdom and strength to perform kebad lashon, heavy of mouth and heavy the work which he has laid upon us. of tongue. Gr. 'Of a small voice and When Moses expressed his inherent in- of a slow tongue.' Chal. Of a heavy ability to execute the mighty charge, he speech and of a deep tongue.' As the did well; but when he resisted the ap- words are rendered in our translation, pointment, after so many promises and it would be difficult, perhaps, to mark signs, he failed in his duty, and be- the distinction between 'slow of speech,' trayed a spirit of the most culpable un- and of a slow tongue;' but from the belief. But even this was borne with. the force of the original we gather, that ¶ Neither heretofore, nor since the former is more appropriate to an thou hast spoken. Heb. 'Since yester-imperfect elocution, occasioned by some day, and since the third day.' A usual defect in the action of the organs of form of speech to intimate time past in speech; the latter, to a want of aptness

or felicity in adapting one's expressions to the ideas which he wishes to convey. The latter phrase occurs, Exek. 3. 5, 6, where it is rendered,' hard language,' i. e. obscure, requiring interpretation, as it is immediately added, 'whose words thou canst not understand.' There is perhaps an intimation that in the long lapse of forty years he had almost lost the true pronunciation | representative to a foreign court, would of the Egyptian language.