English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm reading from Exodus 4:23 and I'm having a hard time following the plot. It goes like this:

And if you refuse to let him go, behold I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

And it came to pass by the way, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me."

I suspect someone has expunged key words here, for I cannot follow the gist of the story.

Church people, can you help me out here? Replies from scholars also appreciated.

2007-02-16 06:36:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

12 answers

I’ve had a problem with that passage too. It seems that Zipporah, Moses’ wife, did not agree with the custom of circumcisem, but the text doesn’t seem to flow well. Is the “Him” that the Lord sought to kill Moses’ son? That’s the best I can do with it.

2007-02-16 06:50:47 · answer #1 · answered by Caveman 5 · 0 0

Moses was on his way to Egypt with his wife and sons when this happened. The account does not state with specificity whose life was in danger. But we can reasonably conclude that it was not Moses' life; he had just received a divine commission according to Exodus 3:10. Doesn't seem likely that on his way to fulfill his assignment, his life would have been threatened by God's angel. The law given to Abraham regarding circumcision said: "An uncircumcised male who will not get the flesh of his foreskin circumcised, even that soul must be cut off from his people." Genesis 17:14. Apparently, Moses neglected to circumcise his son and now the boy's life was threatened.

Since the angel had the power to put the boy to death, reasonably, Zipporah touched the feet of the angel with the foreskin presenting it as evidence that she had complied with the covenant.

The expression "you are a bridegroom of blood" is unusual to say the least. When Zipporah complied, she seemed to be acknowledging a covenant relationship with Jehovah God. In the covenant relationship that was later made with the nation of Israel, Jehovah can be thought of as a husband and the nation (the other party in the contract) as a wife. (See Jeremiah 31:32). So calling Jehovah (through the representative angel) the bridegroom of blood, she seems to have acknowledged her submission to the terms of that covenant.

Whatever, because of her quick obedience, the life of her son was no longer in danger.

Hannah J Paul

2007-02-16 14:54:53 · answer #2 · answered by Hannah J Paul 7 · 1 0

The first part is part of the instruction God gave to Moses on how to deal with Pharaoh and how to intimidate him into setting the Hebrews free. You left out the part wherein God tells Moses what to say to Pharaoh, ie, tell him I'll make his firstborn dead, dead, dead.

The sought to kill him is another inti midation tactic. It ensures that Moses gets the message of just how important it is that he do what he's told the way God wants it done. Moses was probably circumcised, but it's unlikely he knew why. So he failed in his covenantal relationship with God by not circumcising his sons.

That Zipporah circumcised her son may be for this reason. From Abraham on, Hebrews circumcised their sons. If Moses and his family were to truly represent God, they HAD to be in compliance with the Covenant He'd made with Abraham; the sign of which is the circumcision.

And if Moses is to follow God's plan, he MUST do so within the covenantal relationship. The whole must be seen to be the workings of God on behalf of His Chosen People, Israel. Not some other being, not some secular reason; but God, delivering His Chosen Ones from slavery into the land promised by Him to Abraham.

Hope this helps.

2007-02-16 14:53:10 · answer #3 · answered by Granny Annie 6 · 0 0

Some scholars believe that verse 24 is speaking of Moses' son....that the Lord was going to kill Moses' son because he was not circumcised. At that point, Zipporah, Moses' wife, circumcised the son and sarcastically remarked, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me."

2007-02-16 14:46:01 · answer #4 · answered by paulsamuel33 4 · 1 0

The verse is about Pharaoh letting God's people go. Aaron was to go help Moses. Zipporah circumcised her son because it was a Jewish custom. If you read the scriptures before and after, say two to three on each side, it should help clear things up a bit. Zipporah was not Jewish. She did not understand circumcision.

2007-02-16 14:49:17 · answer #5 · answered by gigglings 7 · 1 0

The first part of the scripture is talking about Pharaoh of Egypt and the 10 plagues: if he continued to refuse to let God's people go, he would literally lose his firstborn to the final plague.

The foreskin part: While on the way to Egypt, (to deliver the 3 signs to Pharaoh) Moses’ son has to be circumcised to prevent a death in the family, reminding Moses of God’s requirements. (Gen. 17:14) At that time, God required His faithful (male) servants to be circumcised.

Ye olde english always makes things harder to understand :(

2007-02-16 14:51:02 · answer #6 · answered by danni_d21 4 · 0 0

Get out of the King James translation and read it from the NIV or the NASB. Go to Biblegateway.com if you don't have one and look it up. "Him" in verse 24 is Moses. She basically said that Moses was covered under the blood protection that she was therefore God spared his life. The same way when God brought the Plague through Egypt for the firstborns...those who had the blood around the door and window were protected.

2007-02-16 14:43:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Go back to Gen 17:9. Apparently Moses had broken the covenant.
Moses may have not circumcised his son because of Zipporah (she was not Israelite). She may have realized how grave her actions were.

2007-02-16 14:50:56 · answer #8 · answered by Mr Marc 3 · 1 0

The slaying of the son was the foreshadowing of the tenth, and last of the plagues. The rest is about Moses who was going to call God's people to risk their lives in dependence on the God of the covenant . But he had thought so little of that covenant that he had not circumcised his own son. To toy with God, especially in momentous hours, is to invite destruction.

2007-02-16 14:50:48 · answer #9 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 1 0

Well, you did not say exactly what you do not understand.

You should try reading other versions. Try Holman.

That story speaks of the covenant that God has with the people, the son of Moses was not circumcised, making him a non-member of the community. An outcast/unclean individual. For that God could have taken Moses' life (for not complying with the covenant requirements). But Zipporah knew of the conditions of the covenant and proceeded to circumcise her child and with the blood still on the knife, she used it to redeem the fault of her husband.

Thanks be to God, because I typed out the above without knowing what I was typing. I typed as the spirit guided.

2007-02-16 14:41:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers