The opening of Exodus 3 marks the end of the forty years in Midian. Moses was now eighty years old, virile and active in his work of supervising the stock - rearing interests of his father - in - law Jethro, who was probably not far off a hundred and twenty years of age. To all intents and purposes Moses would seem to have settled for life in Midian with no likelihood of return to Egypt although he may not have been altogether cut off from his own family. The allusion, in chapter 4.14, to Aaron coming to meet him seems to indicate that his elder brother knew where to find him. There was a constant coming and going of Egyptian officials and others between Egypt and the Midian copper mines. This renders it by no means unreasonable to think that despite his long residence in the wilderness Moses had been kept in touch with the condition of things back home.

Chapter 3.1 tells how Moses led his flocks "to the back side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb". This is the first of many geographical allusions in the Book of Exodus which, when understood, prove how intimately the writer of Exodus knew his territory. These indications form one of the strongest links in the chain of evidences demonstrating the Mosaic authorship of Exodus. The Midianites inhabited the southern part, particularly the south eastern portion, of the Sinai peninsula. Mount Sinai, in the centre of the southern half, lay in their territory, and the famous copper mines of Serabit al Khadim, from which the Egyptians obtained much of their copper and precious stones, about forty miles north of Sinai. The word rendered "desert" is midbar. Of each of the twenty - two different Hebrew words descriptive of the earth's surface in its various aspects, midbar, usually translated wilderness, denotes the wild open spaces, grass grown and bush covered, the type of land normally wandered over by nomadic tribes as distinct from the settled lands of agricultural people. The word therefore accurately describes the enclosed acacia covered valleys of southern Sinai. The word "backside" which in Hebrew idiom means the west, points unerringly to that part of Midianite territory which lay around "Horeb the mountain of God",. This is part of the Sinai range only three miles away from Mount Sinai itself, and overlooking a long curved plain, some ten miles long, by one mile wide where ample pasturage for Moses' flocks could be found.

Here it was, one day, that Moses, busy about his duties with the flocks of sheep and goats that were his care, saw the Burning Bush. "The angel of the Lord appeared unto him in aflame of fire out of the midst of a bush, and he looked, and behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed" (3. 2). Moses turned aside to examine this wonder at closer quarters ‑ and heard the voice of God speaking to him out of the midst of the bush.

The Old Testament story of the Burning Bush is often regarded as a miracle, but there is no statement to that effect in Exodus. We have just the plain unvarnished statement that Moses' attention was attracted by a flaming bush that appeared to continue burning without being consumed. Upon staying to view the strange sight became conscious of the voice of God commissioning him to return to Egypt and deliver the people of Israel. The Hebrew word here rendered 'bush' is the one for acacia. In ancient times ‑ and until the middle of the nineteenth century the peninsula of Sinai was thickly covered with acacias, so that this part of the story rings true. As to the nature of the phenomenon, the account is silent, but an incident witnessed by the modern author, Louis Golding, and related in his book "In the steps of Moses the Lawgiver" might very well explain what happened to Moses. Golding was in this very district, in one of the wadis or dry water - courses on the slopes of Mount Sinai. It was the evening of a hot day... but let Golding relate the story in his own words ....

"I am at this point compelled to quote the apparition of a Burning Bush which was so exact a rendering of the strange and lovely marvel described in the Bible, that I quite literally was afraid to trust my eyes. The apparition lasted several seconds, and though I was aware of its exact rationale while it endured, I still said to myself it was mirage or inward fancy. The thing happened "in the back of the wilderness" in one of the wadis under the flank of Sinai. It was the evening of a hot and windy day. As we approached the arena where two or three wadis debouched, the winds met, and, joining forces, became a cyclone, a tall pillar of air violently rotating on its axis, its whole length defined by the sand it sucked up from the dry wadi bed. In the centre of this arena was a large thorny acacia, the only tree which grows in these regions. The sun had for some minutes been hidden behind a long bank of cloud. It remained hidden until the cyclone reached the acacia. Then in the moment the cyclone possessed itself of the tree, the sun hurled its rays obliquely upon their embrace. The whole tree went up in flames. The smoke of it soared in gusts. Every thorn was a spit of fire.

"It continued so for several seconds. It seemed as if the cyclone was impaled on the sharp spikes of the branches. It thrust and thrust and thrust again. The bush burned with fire, and was not consumed. Then at last the cyclone freed itself, and went hurtling along one of the wadis. The tree was no more than a thorny acacia again, arid and lonely in the centre of the hills."

Perhaps for a short time Golding and his companions witnessed something which might easily have been the same thing that was seen and recorded by their illustrious forerunner more than three thousand years previously.

It is more than likely that what Moses saw was some natural phenomenon of this kind; nothing in the account contradicts such a conclusion. What is of greater importance is the fact that very evidently Moses heard the voice of God speaking to him at this time. Whether it was in fact an audible voice on the air appearing to emanate from the burning bush, or an impression produced upon the mind of Moses in so clear - cut a manner that to him it was as a voice speaking, is of no real consequence. The point to stress is that this was no psychological experience or hallucination, in which Moses might interpret a subconscious urge to go back to Egypt and deliver Israel as the voice of God speaking. This was definite Divine intervention. As the account says, it was the angel of the Lord speaking to Moses. The whole tenor of chapter 3.1 - 5 shows that. Moses did not want to go to Egypt; he neither believed he was the man to deliver Israel, nor did he believe that if he went Israel would take any notice of him. The fire and zeal of earlier years had burned low; forty years a nomad shepherd in Midian had taught him many things but it had also blunted the edge of his perception of Israel's parlous condition. His desire for Israel's deliverance was probably as keen as ever but he now believed that God must do the work by another man. His life was two thirds gone, he was more a Midianite man than a Hebrew, more a nomad shepherd than a city dweller, and the leadership of so great a project, attractive as it may have been in earlier years, was now a prospect from which he shrank. "Who am I" he said to God "that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?" (3.11).

Perhaps Moses had to be brought to this point where he must set his hand to the plough, if he set it at all, solely in the power of God. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt was to be entirely and altogether the work of God, and Moses was to be only the instrument. Perhaps Moses had to be convinced that whereas he had no confidence in his own adequacy he could have complete confidence in the power of God. It is noteworthy in chapter 3 that God tells Moses of His intentions in terms which leave no room for any power save His own. "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. I have seen the affliction of my people. I am come down to deliver them, and to bring them into a good land. I have seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppressed them. I will send thee unto Pharaoh". (3. 6 - 10). It was the last declaration which jolted Moses and called forth his expostulation of unworthiness, and God abruptly cast his words aside with "Since I will be with thee" (v.12 ‑ not "certainly" as in the A.V.). Since God will be with him why will he either doubt or dissent? Since God will be with him what possible weakness or failure could there be? This was the first hurdle Moses had to cross, his own lack of self - confidence, the consciousness of his own weakness and insufficiency. So far from that being a drawback, said God, it is really an advantage. My strength will be made perfect in your weakness. Moses' objection fell to the ground.

He was ready with another. If he was not to go to Israel in his own name and claim leadership in his own strength, in whose name should he go. "When I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them?" (3.13). That question throws a flood of light upon the condition of Israel as to their conception of God. National tradition must have preserved the knowledge of God who called their forefather Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, preserved their fathers in their generations and brought Jacob and his sons into Egypt. But all that was a long time ago and the gods of Egypt were probably much more real to them now ‑ and these gods were all known by name. Which of the many gods was He that would deliver them from Egypt? How would they know Him and how could they picture Him? Was He after all some strange god of the desert who they had not known heretofore? What guarantee could there be, if they trusted themselves to Him at the word of Moses, that He could indeed prove greater in power than all the gods of Egypt and lead them assuredly into the Land of Promise? Moses foresaw a sceptical reception if he turned up in Egypt with this story of a God who had spoken to him in the wilderness and commanded him to go back to Egypt and bring the people of Israel out from under the hand of Pharaoh.

The Divine reply to Moses gives us one of the most sublime passages in the whole Bible. "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM say to the children Israel, I AM has sent me unto you". In those words, rightly understood, God asserts His own eternity and in fact removes himself from association with any question of designating names. The word used there is hay ah, which is the present tense of the substantive verb "to be" in the first person. The substitution of the third person for the first gives yahweh which has become transliterated, clumsily, into the English word Jehovah and used in some circles as a proper name for God. It is in fact nothing of the kind. The word should always be rendered as in fact Dr.Moffatt usually renders it, "the Eternal". That is the only possible manner of referring to, or describing, God, who is from everlasting to everlasting, having no beginning and no ending, who is, and was, and shall be, the Almighty. That is the only way of differentiating God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, from all the false gods of the nations, all of whom had their own names and characteristics and none of whom are eternal. To give God a name, as men and false gods have a name, is to bring Him down to the level of those false gods and make him one among them. A little thought will usually be sufficient to show how meaningless must be a proper name applied to God, who is himself the maker and sustainer and container of all things. The idea frequently encountered that God intended Moses to understand this term as a proper name, the "name" of God, probably comes from the Lord's word in 3.15 "This is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" but the word for "name" here - Shem - is based on the idea of renown or fame, as when we say "he made himself a name", and "memorial" - zeker - is remembrance or memory. "For ever" - leolam - extends the name and the memorial, the fame and the memory, into the illimitable future, into a continuance without a stipulated or visible ending. In what clearer terms could there be conveyed to mortal man the realisation that in all his endeavours to know or visualise or define God, the Creator, the Almighty, the Heavenly Father, call him what we will, the one simple expression "the Eternal" includes all and sets him for ever apart from every other object of veneration and every other form of authority that has existed or can arise amongst man.

So Moses received his answer, to go to Israel and tell them that the Eternal, who in ages past had led Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, was moving now to lead them, and because He is the Eternal, all that He decrees must surely come to pass and all that stands against his Will must surely in the fulness of time be broken. That is a truth we may do well to take to ourselves to - day when so much that is in the world of men seems to be destructive of the things of God with little outward sign that matters will ever change.

Moses was to go into Egypt, to gather the elders of Israel, to tell them of his experience and conversation with God, and with them to go before Pharaoh and demand the liberty of the people. And Moses listened and his heart failed him and he replied dejectedly "they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee" (4. 1). And the gracious Lord gave him two signs, two miracles, to strengthen his wavering faith.

It is at this point we enter the realm of the miraculous in the Book of Exodus. It is of little use attempting to whittle away the apparent incredibility of these things by finding natural explanations. There are many wonderful happenings or unusual happenings recorded in the Scriptures and popularly believed to be miracles which are nothing of the sort and not claimed by Scripture to be anything of the sort. Sooner or later an understanding of the true nature of the apparently incredible story is attained. But equally there are accounts of happenings which must rightly be classed as examples of Divine manipulation of natural forces, not necessarily because no other explanation meets the case, but because there existed a need for manifest Divine intervention in the matter in hand. So it was here. Moses stood in need of some definite outward evidence of the reality of the Divine power in which he believed but which he had never seen in operation. The demonstration must of necessity be allied with an act of faith in order to make it a vital factor in the developing resolution of Moses. God told him to cast his shepherd's staff on the ground. He did so, and it became a living serpent, from which Moses backed in alarm. That was the miracle. Now came the act of faith. He was told to pick it up by the tail. That is the wrong way to pick up a poisonous serpent and invites trouble. Moses knew the only way to capture or kill a serpent without risk of being bitten was to grasp it immediately behind the head. But faith was developing. He picked it up by the tail, and it became a staff again.

The other sign followed quickly. Obedient to the command, Moses thrust his hand into his clothes. When he withdrew it the flesh was covered with leprosy. Again as instructed, he replaced his hand and upon again withdrawing it the leprosy was gone.

These were the evidences Moses was to offer to a primitive and untutored people to prove his commission from God. Such signs to - day would not convince sophisticated man - but they are not offered to - day. They were designed for an age when they could be of use. And as to the likelihood of such things having actually happened, Moses is the narrator and he was alone when the occurrences were said to have taken place. The power which manipulated natural elements to turn water into wine at Cana of Galilee, and to restore whole flesh to the decaying body of Lazarus after he had been dead for four days, could be just as effective in transforming the carbo - hydrates of a wooden staff into those comprising an animal body and infusing it with temporary life, or first corrupting and then restoring the healthy flesh of Moses' hand in a few moments of time. One hypothesis explaining the narrative of chapter 4 is that Moses, in the ecstasy of spirit evoked by the apparition of the burning bush, imagined it all and really believed it when he told the story afterwards. That does not explain how his brother Aaron was able to repeat the wonder in the sight of Pharaoh and his court later on. It is a much more likely conclusion that the wonder actually happened just as Moses recorded it and that it was a manifestation of the power of God, for it then takes its place in the whole procession of Divine interventions by means of which Pharaoh was at last induced to let the people go and they reached, at length, their Promised Land.

Moses was not yet convinced. He thought up a new objection. He was not eloquent; he was slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. How could he be expected to persuade either the people or Pharaoh? The answer reads short and abrupt - a human touch, almost as if the Lord was losing patience with his reluctant ambassador. "Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Eternal? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shall say". (4.12). Those few words incidentally place the commission of Moses on the same miraculous basis as the signs he had just witnessed. The same Divine power could just as easily take a tongue that by nature could not speak, and make it speak. Just as miraculously because just as much a manipulation of Nature.

Moses capitulated, but with, it is to be feared, somewhat of bad grace. The expression in 4. 13 "Send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou will send" can only mean a somewhat reluctant admission that if God will not send anybody else, well then, Moses is his servant and must accept the commission but really God would be much better advised to find somebody else. And at that God lost patience with him - at least that is how it seemed to Moses and how he put it in his narrative although in fact we know that God never loses patience - and told him that he would be taken at his word and the commission to deliver Israel would be shared with his brother Aaron. God would speak to Moses but Aaron should be the spokesman to the people and to Pharaoh.

That was the end of the interview. The voice from heaven spoke no more; the radiance of the burning bush died away; Moses stood alone beside that solitary acacia with the beetling crags of Mount Horeb towering above him and no sound in his ears but the cries of the goats as they straggled across the green plain. He must have realised, as he looked upon the peaceful scene, that the quiet and settled life he had led for forty years was ended, that now he had received the call to action. Henceforth life was to be filled with labour and sacrifice and suffering, but at the end of it all the realisation that the dreams of his early life had been fulfilled and the Lord by his hand had delivered Israel. Like the young maiden Mary, at a time then still far distant in futurity, he might have breathed to the heavens beyond those high peaks of Sinai "Behold the servant of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word".

AOH