c. Call of the deliverer (3:1-4:28)

Here is a classic in world literature as it describes every person’s attempt to evade responsibility and avoid the imperative of service to God. Moses focuses on his inadequacy, but God, by focusing upon his own adequacy, shows Moses that this is not the issue.

The encounter takes place at Horeb, another name for Mount Sinai (3:12). This mountain was associated with God’s self-revelation to Elijah (1Ki 19:8), and Habakkuk (Hab 3:3, there called Mount Paran). Here the revelation occurs through the angel of the Lord, who is not merely a messenger, but God himself in visible form (vv.2, 4). The burning bush is symbolic of God’s holiness, which sets its vessel alight but does not consume it. That holiness is further emphasized by the command for Moses to remove his sandals, which were defiled because of their contact with ordinary soil.

In vv.6-9 God shows how he is the God of the past, present, and future. He is the One who made gracious promises in the past, who is now moved by his people’s need, and who will bring them into a glorious future.

Moses' protest that he is not worthy is met by God’s promise that he will be with him (3:11-12). Likewise, his claim not to know God well enough (v.13) is met by God’s promise to reveal his timeless reality (I am) as the God of the past (v.16), the present, and the future (vv.18-22).

The first request that Moses was to make (3:18) of the Egyptians underlines that God’s purpose for the Hebrews was not merely to set them free, but to make them his people in worship. Nevertheless, it was implicit in such a request that the slaves would not be returning, and God knows it will be rejected (v.19). This initial mention of Pharaoh’s hard-heartedness shows that he was not predestined apart from his own free choice. See below on 4:21 for further discussion. Ultimately, the oppressors would provide the materials for the later offerings given to build the tabernacle (vv.21-22; see 35:22-24).

Moses' third objection (4:1-9) is that he has no means of compelling attention. God’s response is to demonstrate his power. It seems likely that the two signs were deliberately chosen to show God’s power over evil (vv.3-4) and sin (vv.6-7). Turning the Nile to blood (v.9) would demonstrate power over the source of Egypt’s national life.

Moses' final objection (4:10-12) betrays a certain desperation. God has demolished the other arguments by simple reference to his own character and power. Moses does not deny these but asserts that he is unable to declare them. God insists that since he is the Creator, Moses' mouth poses no problem for him.

The real reason behind Moses' objections now appears. He does not want to do what God wants. But God leaves him no way out by revealing that Aaron is already coming and can serve as Moses' spokesman. Moses must either disobey or go. His request to his father-in-law for permission to return to Egypt is not yet a glad acceptance of a commission, as seen by the following incident (4:24-26) and by his questions in 6:12. Nevertheless, Moses was obeying. While attitude is important and must finally be brought into line, action is even more important.

The mention of hardening Pharaoh’s heart (4:21) requires careful thought. Clearly Pharaoh is not someone who would like to obey God but cannot because of God’s predetermined will. Rather, he is a proud, determined tyrant who believes he is God and intends to do as he pleases (see 3:19; 7:22; 8:15). God did not harden Pharaoh’s heart against his will. Probably the phrase is intended to convey that although Pharaoh may believe his hardness is entirely of his own momentary choice, it is really the result of proud willfulness, which has left him unable to do other than the sum of all those other choices. God has made the world that way, and in that limited sense our choices are determined.

Scholars disagree about the meaning of the mysterious event narrated in 4:24-26, but the most probable hypothesis is that Moses, who is going to call his people to covenant faithfulness, thought so little of the covenant that he had not circumcised his own son (see Ge 17:9-14 for the origins of the practice). It is evident that Moses and Zipporah had previously discussed whether or not to perform the rites since she immediately diagnosed the problem and took the appropriate action. We may be grateful to God that he does not normally require such rigid obedience. Nevertheless, at certain key points in salvation history, he has shown us the extreme danger of taking him lightly (see also Lev 10:1-3; Jos 7:14-26; 2Sa 6:6-7; Ac 5:1-11).