- Feb 5, 2002
- 183,496
- 66,754
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Chapter 4 of the Book of Exodus contains one of the strangest passages in all of Sacred Scripture. Verses 18-26 describe how Moses, living in exile in the land of Midian, goes to his father-in-law Jethro to request permission to return to his own people back in Egypt. Jethro consents, and so Moses sets off together with his wife, Zipporah, and their sons.
Then comes the weird part. We are told that, “At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to kill him” (v. 24). In a bizarre display of quick thinking, Zipporah responds by hastily circumcising her son, and holding the foreskin to his feet. Stranger still is the fact that this unorthodox tactic actually works! God allows the family to continue on their way.
How are we supposed to understand this perplexing episode? We must acknowledge from the outset that the passage in question is one of the most obscure texts in the whole Bible. Modern commentators and ancient rabbis alike have wrestled with its meaning, and various different theories have been proposed over the centuries. Here we shall offer just one such theory—not with an eye to solving all of the difficulties, but simply to offer a few pointers that might render it a little more intelligible.
The emphasis on circumcision in the passage suggests that Moses was guilty of failing to circumcise his son. The implication is that the family had lapsed into the Midianite custom of delaying circumcision until shortly before marriage. This was in direct contravention of the Abrahamic covenant, in which God commanded that all male newborns be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (see Gen 17:9-13).
Moses, it seems, had become overly acquainted with the cultural customs of his in-laws, even to the point of disobeying the edicts of the God of Israel. This is a risky business because, as the passage reveals, the divine patience may be considerable, but it doesn’t last forever. Having appointed Moses as His chosen deputy to lead His people out of Egypt (see Ex 4:1-17), God now calls him to account for failing to keep his own house in order.
It’s at this juncture that we confront the first of several major ambiguities in the text. When verse 24 recalls that “the Lord met him and sought to kill him,” it actually isn’t clear whether the “him” in the passage refers to Moses or, alternatively, to his son Gershom. In a number of respects, assuming that the target of the attack is Gerhsom makes the whole passage easier to understand, and so that is the interpretation we will adopt here.
Continued below.
stpaulcenter.com
Then comes the weird part. We are told that, “At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to kill him” (v. 24). In a bizarre display of quick thinking, Zipporah responds by hastily circumcising her son, and holding the foreskin to his feet. Stranger still is the fact that this unorthodox tactic actually works! God allows the family to continue on their way.
How are we supposed to understand this perplexing episode? We must acknowledge from the outset that the passage in question is one of the most obscure texts in the whole Bible. Modern commentators and ancient rabbis alike have wrestled with its meaning, and various different theories have been proposed over the centuries. Here we shall offer just one such theory—not with an eye to solving all of the difficulties, but simply to offer a few pointers that might render it a little more intelligible.
The emphasis on circumcision in the passage suggests that Moses was guilty of failing to circumcise his son. The implication is that the family had lapsed into the Midianite custom of delaying circumcision until shortly before marriage. This was in direct contravention of the Abrahamic covenant, in which God commanded that all male newborns be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (see Gen 17:9-13).
Moses, it seems, had become overly acquainted with the cultural customs of his in-laws, even to the point of disobeying the edicts of the God of Israel. This is a risky business because, as the passage reveals, the divine patience may be considerable, but it doesn’t last forever. Having appointed Moses as His chosen deputy to lead His people out of Egypt (see Ex 4:1-17), God now calls him to account for failing to keep his own house in order.
It’s at this juncture that we confront the first of several major ambiguities in the text. When verse 24 recalls that “the Lord met him and sought to kill him,” it actually isn’t clear whether the “him” in the passage refers to Moses or, alternatively, to his son Gershom. In a number of respects, assuming that the target of the attack is Gerhsom makes the whole passage easier to understand, and so that is the interpretation we will adopt here.
Continued below.
Why does God try to kill Moses in Exodus 4?
Chapter 4 of the Book of Exodus contains one of the strangest passages in all of Sacred Scripture. Verses 18 - 26 describe how Moses, living in exile in the land of Midian, goes to his father - in - law Jethro to request permission to return to his own people ba ck in Egypt. Jethro consents, and so
stpaulcenter.com
