What in the world does Exodus 4:24-26 mean???

DaBronx said:

THANKS! ANYONE!!!!!

Click to expand...

Exo 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
Exo 4:25 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.
Exo 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Hebrew boys were to be circumcised by a certain age. Moses had not followed the law and was about to lose his son. If you are doing God’s work you better do as God says.

First, let me warn you that there are an enormous number of opinions on this passage, some of which assume that the text is damaged. I don't think anyone can honestly claim to know for sure. This is pretty clearly a very old story, and it's even possible that the final editor no longer understood it.

I'll give you a typical reading (this based on the Word commentary): God was about to kill Moses because he wasn't circumcised. He was about to go on a critical mission for God. Maybe God was upset that he wasn't properly prepared (as suggested by #2 above). I think this is at best a guess for why God was about to attack him. But because he was about to leave, there wasn't time for him to heal if he were circumcised himself. So his wife circumcised his son and kind of transferred the effect.

The hardest part to understand is what she says: You are my bridegroom because of bloodshed [CEB]. At this point I believe what the commentaries say is really guesswork. But there's some reason to think that originally circumcision might have been associated with marriage, and this was a reference to that. Some scholars think it's actually this account that was the basis for the Jewish people to move circumcision to infants.

The NET Bible notes agrees with this basically, but not with this interpretation of "bridegroom of blood." However they don't seem to have a coherent alternative.

There is actually some ambiguity about who the passage focused on. Comment #2 above assumes it was the son. The problem with that is that if it was the son who needed to be circumcised it doesn't make sense to touch Moses with it, and talk about "bridegroom of blood." I agree with the comment that if you're about to go on a mission for God you had been comply with God's requirements. But I think it's pretty clear that it was Moses who was at risk.

Numbers 22 YLT - And the sons of Israel journey and - Bible Gateway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaam

Balaam sends back word that he can only do what YHWH commands, and God has, via a nocturnal dream, told him not to go. Moab consequently sends higher ranking priests and offers Balaam honours; Balaam, in his coveteousness, continues to press God, and God finally gives him over to his greed and permits him to go but with instructions to say only what he commands. Balaam thus, without being asked again, sets out in the morning with the princes of Moab and God becomes angry that he went, and the Angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:22) is sent to prevent him. At first the angel is seen only by the donkey Balaam is riding, which tries to avoid the otherwise invisible angel. After Balaam starts punishing the donkey for refusing to move, it is miraculously given the power to speak to Balaam (Numbers 22:28), and it complains about Balaam's treatment. At this point, Balaam is allowed to see the angel, who informs him that the donkey is the only reason the angel did not kill Balaam. Balaam immediately repents, but is told to go on

not feet, "feet". It's a common OT euphemism for genitals. I believe the son was being circumcised on Moses' behalf, hence touching what should have been circumcised on Moses.

I don't know Hebrew, but I understood from the passage that it was Moses' son who was uncircumcised and that the angel was going to kill Moses, who neglected his duty as a descendant of Abraham by not circumcising him on the 8th day. Moses was with his parents for 3 months after he was born so he was most likely circumcised as a baby like all Hebrew boys since Abraham's time.

I suggest reading Exodus 3:2-14 will shed some light on who the LORD actually is. Cross reference this with where Jesus said "Before Abraham was I AM" and virtually all references to the LIVING GOD. Jesus was crucified for claiming to be God, when he was a man. To this he replied that we are gods, and that they are "children of their father the devil." That old seven headed serpent cast down in Rev 12 who deceives the whole world, even from the very beginning: http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/ssm07.htm

Moses and Zipporah had had words about this prior.

She had said, "h*** no! You're not going to do that Jewish thing to our son!"

Moses conceded.

God didn't.

God won.

Zipporah conceded.

Zipporah was a sore loser and little Moses Jr. was just sore.

Sometimes commentaries overexplain things, like "this is a very old passage, the transciber probably didn't know what to do with it."

As usual the truly profound point being missed by the commentators; namely, God was apparently prepared to dump Moses and use someone else. Think of the implications in the life of the Church.