Commentaria in Exodum
3. SO THAT MOSES FLED.—For this serpent was produced from a great rod, great and horrid: whence Philo calls it a dragon, prince of serpents.
5. THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE.—Supply, thou shalt do this sign of the rod before them, namely that thou change it into a serpent, and again into a rod: for this end, that they may believe thee to be sent by me.
6. WHICH WHEN HE HAD PUT INTO HIS BOSOM, HE BROUGHT IT FORTH LEPROUS.—This is the second sign, the leprous and healed hand.
Symbolically, literally: Moses putting his hand into his bosom signified that he had care of the people and bore them as it were in his bosom, Num. 11:12. For the hand signified the Hebrew people: hence in the bosom of Moses the hand was made leprous, because when the Egyptians saw the people have Moses as leader, and by him fostered, raised and defended, they began to treat and afflict them more harshly under Moses; but Moses sending it in again into the bosom, that is, taking up the full and perfect care of the people; he, by avenging the people through the plagues sent on Pharao, drew his hand out sound and whole, because he led the people out of Egypt in safety.
Symbolically and tropologically, this sign signified the cause of the affliction of the Hebrews: for the hands in the bosom are the Hebrews in worship and religion, and consequently in the care and bosom as it were of God; here the hand was made leprous, because the Hebrews fell into the idols and vices of the Egyptians; but God washed this away, and purged the hand of leprosy, when he again put the Hebrews by Moses in his bosom, accepting them as his people and his Church. So St. Cyril and Theodoret. Theodoret adds that God wished by this sign to warn Moses of perpetual humility, since he first infected with leprosy the hand which was to be wonder-working, and to change even the elements themselves.
Allegorically St. Augustine, serm. 86 On the Time: The leprous hand, he says, is the Synagogue of the Jews, which, infected with leprosy, that is, with unbelief in Christ, was rejected by God; to this succeeded the clean hand, that is, the faithful Church of the Gentiles, chosen by God.
Secondly Pererius: The hand of Moses, he says, is Christ the Son of God, who is as it were the hand of the Father; for through him the Father made all things. He was from eternity in the bosom of the Father, but when he was brought forth, dying, by the incarnation, he was seen leprous, that is, overwhelmed with labours and sorrows. Whence Isaias 53 says: “There is no beauty in him, nor comeliness, and we have thought him as it were a leper.” But drawn back again by the resurrection and ascension into the bosom of the Father, and sitting at the right hand of God, he appeared glorious.
8. NOR HEAR THE VOICE OF THE FORMER SIGN,—that is, verse 5, the voice confirmed by the former sign: for the sign spoke with a mute voice that the speech of Moses was the speech of God, and of this matter this seal was the sign.
9. TAKE OF THE WATER OF THE RIVER,—the Nile. AND IT SHALL BE TURNED INTO BLOOD.—This third sign, by which Moses turned water into blood, was added: for by it he as it were upbraided the Egyptians with infanticide, and avenged their blood with this blood, and portended their suffocation in the waters and the Red Sea, who had drowned the little ones of the Hebrews in the waters. “For it was fitting,” says Origen, “that that river to which they had given the little ones to be drowned by cruel death, should render to the authors of the crime a cup of blood, and that they should feel in drinking the gore of the polluted flood which they had stained by parricidal slaughter,” serm. On the Time. Josephus thinks Moses tried this third sign also, as the first two, and did it here before the Lord. But Philo better thinks that Moses tried only the first two signs here before the Lord, but put off this third sign and reserved it to do it before Pharao: for this the Scripture signifies here. Tertullian, book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chap. 28, takes these three signs mystically for the threefold power of God: for this first subdued the serpent, that is the devil; secondly, will draw the leprous flesh, nay corrupt, from the bosom of death in the resurrection; thirdly, “will pursue all blood,” he says, by judgment, that is, will vindicate by just judgment from death, and will raise up all blood shed in martyrdom or death, by the common resurrection of all.
10. I BESEECH THEE, LORD.—Supply, spare me, do not send me. For this is understood by aposiopesis. I AM NOT ELOQUENT.—Symmachus: I am not eulogos, that is, fluent; Hebrew, I am not a man of words, who namely would speak much and eloquently; Pharao will not listen to so poor an orator.
FROM YESTERDAY AND THE DAY BEFORE—in time past: it is a Hebraism. AND SINCE.—The Hebrew is, even since thou hast spoken with me, as if to say: Not even by thy speaking to me have I become more eloquent, as thou canst know from my words; wherefore the exposition of Philo is less consonant, which is this: When I compare my eloquence with thine, O Lord, I acknowledge myself dumb and tongueless: for the mind of Moses is otherwise, as I shall presently show. I HAVE MORE IMPEDIMENT AND SLOWNESS OF TONGUE.—Note: These words depend on the preceding, as if to say: Even since thou hast spoken with me, Lord, I have remained of more impeded tongue, and have not become more eloquent, though thou makest the tongues of infants often eloquent. Wrongly therefore the Royal Bible divides these by a colon placed after thy servant, so that a new sentence begins, namely, I have more impediment and slowness of tongue. From the former reading, which is the genuine one, some think that this defect of tongue in Moses was increased by the vision and converse with God, on account of Moses’ supreme admiration and reverence of the divine majesty. But the Hebrew indicates the contrary; for it has thus: “My Lord, I am not eloquent, even from yesterday, even from the day before, even from the time that thou hast spoken to thy servant; for I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue,” as if to say: Never have I been eloquent, not even from the time that thou didst speak with me, But this exposition is refuted by the fact that Moses after this colloquy with God remained unfluent and slow of speech, and, as he himself says chap. 6, verse 12, “of uncircumcised lips”: whence there God adds to him Aaron as companion and interpreter, to speak for Moses to the people.
because by nature I have a hindered and slow tongue. The Chaldee renders: Because I am of heavy speech and deep tongue, as if to say: With difficulty and slowly I speak, so that I seem to draw words from the depth and bottom of my breast. I say therefore that this defect of tongue was natural to Moses, and implanted in him by nature, and did not come to him by accident. Another impediment, of thinness, the Septuagint express when they render, “I am thin of voice and slow of tongue”; and for the thin voice Origen, hom. 3; St. Jerome, Jerem. chap. 1; Philo, Theodoret, Augustine, Quest. 10 and 16, are followed, where he says: “Perhaps royal haughtiness did not permit those approaching to speak from near,” so that Moses rightly fears that, on account of the thinness of his voice, he will not be heard by Pharao.
This is the fourth excuse of Moses, by which he declines the mission to Pharao, taken from the impediment of the tongue. Where note that fivefold that was in Moses: first, that, as the Hebrew indicates, he was a man of few words, that is, meagre and poor in speaking; second, that in speaking he was not eloquent but rude, unpolished and inelegant; third, that in speech he was not ready but slow of speech; fourth, that he was of thin and slender voice; fifth, that his tongue was impeded, so that he could not pronounce some letters and sounds well; perhaps also that he was a stammerer or lisper. On account of these defects Moses, chap. 6, calls himself uncircumcised of lips.
Note here the humility of Moses, by which he confesses his own vileness and declines so honourable an embassy; hence he deserved that, through his feeble voice, God should confound the eloquent and the wise of the Egyptians, says Theodoret.
You will ask whether this defect of tongue in Moses was natural or came upon him by accident. Some in Hugh of Victor think that God chose this alone of tongues for this embassy, both that He might keep Moses in humility by this defect, and that the deliverance of the Hebrews might be attributed not to the eloquence of Moses but to the power of God; for God chose the weak things of the world to confound the strong. In like manner God chose the rude and unlearned Apostles, through whom He converted the world. So Theodoret.
Note: Moses was unfluent outwardly among men, but inwardly was eloquent with God, because by the efficacy of his prayer and holiness he obtained from God whatever he would, as is plain Exodus 32.
11. WHO MADE MAN’S MOUTH? OR WHO MADE THE DUMB AND THE DEAF?
DID NOT I?—as if to say: I am he who give and take away the senses and the use of the senses when it pleases me, so that I can both loosen the tongue of stammerers and bind tongues that are agile when I please: since therefore I now send you and designate you my legate, I shall give you also mouth and eloquence.