Log in to become a member of Joel Hendon's Fan Club!
There is an account in Exodus chapter four and verses 24-25-26 that is very, very confusing but after having studied several of the scholars remarks concerning it, I find that they are divided in their opinions. I will do my best to give you the two most reasonable explanations I have found. And I must confess, I do not know which view is correct. Here is a quote beginning from verse 22 where God is discussing with Moses just what he is to say to Pharaoh when he gets back to Egypt among the Israelites.
"(22)And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: (23) And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.(24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. (25)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. (26)So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision."
Bear in mind, that the commandment for Abraham and all of his seed throughout their generations, to be circumcised was given back in Genesis 17, verses 10 and following. The command specified that the male babies were to be circumcised on their eighth day of life.
One of the best scholars of old, Adam Clarke, although not necessarily agreeing with it, gives the opinion on verse 24 of some others as follows:
Verse 24. By the way in the inn
The account in this and the following verse is very obscure. Some suppose that the 23d verse is not a part of the message to Pharaoh, but was spoken by the Lord to Moses; and that the whole may be thus paraphrased: "And I have said unto thee, (Moses,) Send forth shallach, my son, (Gershom, by circumcising him,) that he may serve me, (which he cannot do till entered into the covenant by circumcision,) but thou hast refused to send him forth; behold, (therefore,) I will slay thy son, thy first-born. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, (when he was on his journey to Egypt,) that Jehovah met him, and sought (threatened) to kill him (Gershom.) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut away the foreskin of her son, and caused it to touch his feet, (Jehovah's, who probably appeared in a bodily shape; the Septuagint call him the Angel of the Lord,) and said unto him, A spouse by blood art thou unto me. Then he (Jehovah) ceased from him (Gershom.) Then she said, A spouse by blood art thou unto me, because of this circumcision." That is, I who am an alien have entered as fully into covenant with thee by doing this act, as my son has on whom this act has been performed.
The meaning of the whole passage seems to be this:-The son of Moses, Gershom or Eliezer, (for it does not appear which,) had not been circumcised, though it would seem that God had ordered the father to do it he had neglected this, therefore Jehovah was about to have slain the child, because not in covenant with him by circumcision, and thus he intended to have punished the disobedience of the father by the natural death of his son.
Zipporah, getting acquainted with the nature of the case and the danger to which her first-born was exposed, took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son. By this act the displeasure of the Lord was turned aside, and Zipporah considered herself as now allied to God because of this circumcision. According to the law,
17:14,) the uncircumcised child was to be cut off from his people, so that there ; but as should be no inheritance for that branch of the family in Israel. Moses therefore, for neglecting to circumcise the child, exposed him to this cutting off, and it was but barely prevented by the prompt obedience of Zipporah. As circumcision was the seal of that justification by faith which comes through Christ, Moses by neglecting it gave a very bad example, and God was about to proceed against him with that severity which the law required.
Although verse 23, in my view, is very difficult to accept as NOT being part of the reference to Pharaoh, the rest of this explanation seems very clear and well considered. But I have found that most scholars do not accept this view but rather, think that God's intention was to kill Moses for having not circumcised the child, and only the action by his wife Zipporah caused God to relent.
Another view comes from another scholar of old, John Gill's exposition of the whole Bible:
Exodus 4:24
And it came to pass by the way, in the inn… As Moses and his family were travelling in their way to Egypt, at an inn where they stopped for the refreshment of themselves and cattle, or in order to lodge all night: so it was, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him; not the uncircumcised son of Moses, as some think, but Moses himself, who had neglected the circumcision of his son; that from the context, and the fact of Zipporah, after related, seems to be the reason of the divine displeasure, and not his bringing his family with him, supposed to be an hinderance of him in his work, nor of his staying too long at the inn, and not hastening his journey, which are the reasons given by some: and Moses's neglect of circumcision was not owing to the disuse of it among the Midianites, who being the descendants of Abraham, it is highly probable they retained this rite, and that it was used in Jethro's family, since Zipporah well understood the nature of it, and how to perform it.
Regardless of which way this scripture was intended, it does appear that God was about to take action against Moses by either killing him or his child, and it was apparent that Zipporah's action did indeed resolve the problem. The commandment back in Genesis 17:14 to Abraham included the punishment for not being circumcised as "shall be cut of from his people" which more often than not, meant that he was to be killed, or at least banished from his tribe.
Some often question the reason for such passages in the Holy Bible. But many of these brief incidents are recorded to show people that God's directives are intended to be obeyed. It is not wise by any measure to say, "Oh, I know that He says that, but I don't believe a loving God would punish me just because I failed to do that." I may write an article soon to point out a number of such incidents by which to show the severity of God and how he views disobedience.
Author Biography: Joel Hendon was born September 20, 1930 near Gadsden Alabama. He attended public schools in Cherokee County, Alabama and after serving a tour of duty in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, attended Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama majoring in Business Administration. He became a Christian in 1948, and although he followed secular work as a career and retired from Allied Signal Aerospace in 1997, he is an avid student of the Holy Bible and related works as well as biblical history. He has an extensive website of religious and political conservative articles and links to many other sites. http://hebronics.org/index.html
Thanks, Joel, I wasn't familiar with either of those explanations. Like you said, either of them disprove this popular, but erroneous, notion that God is all love all the time.
Yes, you are correct. God does love everyone and is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence. No one will spend eternity in hell because of Him, but because of themselves. But when you think of those early Christians who were burned at the stake because they would not renounce Jesus Christ, and people think we can just sit back and coast right in. God is just.
» left by Rick K. from rincon ga. (350 days 21 hours ago.)
Hi Terry,
I have to diagree with you about God not being love all the time. I happen to believe He is love all the time but also completely JUST all the time. God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I find it amazing that because of His Justice that He even lets any one of us live.
» left by Rick K. from Rincon ga. (350 days 21 hours ago.)
Hey Joel,
I have a suggestion. What if this was Moses firstborn? If he had not the sign of the covenant would that not put him at risk for death when all of the first born of egypt were killed? I am not sure that the blood on the door post would have saved the first born with out the sign of the covnenant.
Hi Rick, well who knows? I have an idea it was his firstborn. We know that he had two children, but we don't know when. But regardless, since Moses was supposed to be the one to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, his lack of taking care of this incident was especially important, I think. In reading the commentaries on this matter, I was surprised to find that several of those scholars state that Moses was stricken with a sickness here. I am unable to read anything of this in the text myself. Maybe, I'm just thick.
Well Jennifer, you'll find about as many admonishments to obey in the New Testament as the Old. Why would we not be expected to obey what the apostles taught? Why would we have their writings if they were not to be obeyed? Tell me what Matthew chapter 7, verses 21 through 29 means as you understand it. I appreciate your remarks.
Sorry, I misunderstood, and you are also correct. Jesus exemplified the love and compassion of God. He was God in the flesh, yet he showed humility and..obedience. Good comment.
Joel, I won't go into what this passage means to me of covenant and the blood of Christ shed for the sins of the world, but will say for now only that I see so much of God's way re: how he dealt with Zipporah, one originally "outside." I hope to learn more about the commentators you mention. Thanks for a stimulating and study-provoking article.
Hi Jane, thanks for writing. If you have a desire to read after a bunch of the commentators, you can go to studylightorg. There you will find a place you can enter any scripture, choose which bible version you want, and pull up the scripture.
Then if you look over into the right hand column, you'll see a list of commentaries. ACC means Adam Clarke. BCC means Burton Coffman (but his commentaries are not currently available) and on and on. A wealth of information. God Bless you as you study His word.
Joel, from the title of the article, I thought you meant when Moses died in the mountain but learned differently. I didn't know either account and found this to be very interesting.
I will add, whether God intended to kill him then or not, He did not return after His walk with God. He was killed eventually by the Lord, I'd say. His burial site isn't even known.
I'm so happy you have this column. Thanks for the Bible study and references.
Yes, God would not allow him to enter the promised land because of his failure to glorify God at the rock which sent forth water. We do know that Satan wanted his body. Jude 1:9 Thanks for reading and commenting Avis.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
