Apr
27
My Take on the Emergency Circumcision in Exodus 4
Having already addressed the Genesis 6 issues in “My Take on the Sons of God and Nephilim in Genesis 6” and the awkwardness of Genesis 9 in “My Take on Noah’s Drunken Nakedness and the Sin of Ham in Genesis 9”, it’s now time I finally took a shot at this seemingly out-of-the blue attack and its result from Exodus 4.
On the plus side, the passage in question is the smallest of the three I have dealt with in this series. On the minus side, there is at least as much mystery and just plain lack of information. I will occasionally make reference to my earlier posts citing Study Bible commentary on the passage, though I make use of other material, as well. I am sure that the ancient Jews in the years that followed would have understood what happened better than we do, even if this passage was the only written mention of the incident.
As usual, I will begin by quoting the passage from the ESV translation, then highlight specific phrases or clauses that have been in question and give my best take on them.
“24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.” (Ex. 4:24-26 (ESV))
“the LORD met him”
There are a few questions that have been asked about this part of the story. 1) Did God speak his intent, or did he simply show his displeasure in another way? 2) Did this “meeting” happen in time and space, or was it within a dream or waking vision? 3) Also, Who exactly met with Moses on this occasion? Was it the Angel of the LORD? Maybe another angel? A Christophany of the Word? Or, perhaps a theophany of the Father showing Himself to Moses (and maybe Zipporah, too)?
Regarding the first question, I could see it going either way. I tend to think that God either said something (not recorded in Scripture) to reveal his anger on the matter, or something about His appearance (facial expression?) made it clear to Moses. With that in mind, I think the answer to the second question is a time-and-space meeting. (More on this below.) Elsewhere in Scripture, it describes many instances of encounters with God and/or an angel in dreams and visions, but there is no indication that this was the case in this account.
As for the third question, it is a little more complicated. The “Angel of the LORD” (i.e., “Angel of YHWH”) is distinct from other angels, not only representing YHWH and speaking on His behalf but sometimes accepting worship and forgiving sins (Ex. 23:21). For these reasons, this entity is thought by some to actually be a theophany or Christophany — i.e., a visible manifestation to humanity either of God the Father or of the pre-incarnate Christ. To confuse matters in this particular case, the Masoretic text of Exodus 4:24 uses “YHWH” (often translated “the LORD”), whereas the Greek Septuagint of the verse uses “angel of the Lord”. Strangely, some English translations of the Greek here insert the article “the” in front, whereas other translations insert the article “an”. (No article is used in the Greek in these spots.) So,… it could be a “normal” angelic messenger acting on God’s behalf in this passage, or it could be “the Angel of the Lord”, which may or may not be a theophany (see Gen. 18) of the First Person of the Trinity or the Second Person. I see no indicators either way. (I admit, I haven’t dug into this deeply, so please let me know if you think there are factors that push the odds in favor of one possibility over the others.)
“sought to put him to death”
Who exactly did God “seek” to put to death? Moses? Gershom (his elder son)? According to the late scholar and expert in multiple Semitic languages Gleason L. Archer, the antecedent of “him” in Ex. 4:24 is “Moses”. On the other hand, the NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible makes a good argument for it being Gershom:
“Yahweh attempting to kill Moses seems unlikely in light of the trajectory of chs. 3-4…. Drawing on the context of Ex 4:21-23, Yahweh may have sought to kill Moses’ firstborn because he had not been marked as a member of Israel through circumcision.”
Honestly, I go back-n-forth on which makes the most sense.
Why was God so angry? Though not stated directly, His motives can be pieced together from the overall context. Moses had been chosen by God to lead His people out of Egypt and to the Promised Land. He must lead by example, following God’s instructions without hesitation, yet for some reason he had yet to circumcise his firstborn son as proscribed via Abraham, Father of the twelve tribes. We don’t really know if he was being stubborn, indecisive, giving in to his wife, or what. Moses needed a strong reminder of the seriousness of keeping the Abrahamic covenant and punishment for not doing so. However, while it says that God “sought to put him to death”, the Lord knew that would not be necessary. If killing Moses (or Gershom) was truly His intent, He certainly could have done so instantly. Instead He pushed Moses (via Zipporah) to obedience.
How did He “try” to kill Moses? Some scholars (including Archer, as well as the editors of the NET Full Notes Edition) think that God afflicted Moses with a serious and potentially fatal illness. Moses would then be terribly weak and unable to perform the circumcision. This helps explain why Zipporah, seeing what needed to be done (possibly with a nudge from God?), grabbed the knife and performed the circumcision herself. It is certainly a possible scenario. But, the Bible tends to mention when God uses illness to punish people. Given the total lack of mention of any illness in relation to this incident, I am reluctant to assume this was the case. I tentatively hold that an angel or a theophany of God Himself appeared and indicated — possibly with flaming sword, fierce expression, and unrecorded words — that Gershom needed to be circumcised immediately!
“[Zipporah] touched Moses’ feet with [the foreskin]”
Is this to be understood literally? Or figuratively, as “feet” is sometimes used as a euphemism for genitalia? Also, what is the significance?
I suppose it could be a euphemism. But, certainly, speaking of touching someone’s feet can also mean, well, actually touching the person’s feet. Without clear indication of euphemistic use, I tend to take it literally here. The significance of Zipporah touching Moses with the foreskin — whether placing it on his feet (as some translations say) or throwing it on his feet (as other translations put it) — may have no meaning other than that she was saying, “There, I did your job for you.” On the other hand, the act may have been taken by God as symbolically ending the attack/affliction. We do know from v.26 that God then relented and left him — both Moses and Gershom, in fact — alone.
It has been suggested by some (see NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible) that Moses himself may not have been properly circumcised by the time of the Ex. 4 incident, so Zipporah touching Moses’ feet (or genitalia) also served to symbolically circumcise Moses. But, Gen. 2:2 says Moses was raised by his Levite family for three months before being put in the basket for Pharaoh’s daughter to find. I find it hard to believe that they hadn’t circumcised the baby in the Abrahamic fashion, i.e., full removal of the foreskin on the eighth day after birth (Gen. 17:12). It would have been a clue to the princess that he was from a Jewish family, too. So, this bit of speculation re Moses is unwarranted.
“a bridegroom of blood”
It seems pretty certain from vv.25-26 that this phrase was a reference to the Abrahamic requirement for circumcision, which did indeed result in a bit of pain and shed blood. (Only briefly incapacitating, though, for anyone old enough to walk.) Was this a personal aversion she had to the practice, or was it a more general cultural taboo? Given the greater cultural milieu that both Israelites and Midianites were in (including much animal sacrifice, and in some cases human sacrifice), I’m guessing any such aversion on Zipporah’s part would have been not against bloodshed in general but against that committed upon humans, perhaps of a certain age, and in particular her children. It is worth noting that the phrase can also mean something along the lines of “A husband of misery to me.”
This raises another question, which I mentioned in my earlier post series and I think it is worth mentioning again here. Namely,
“Moses and Zipporah had been married for quite a while (possibly close to four decades) at this point. While I have not researched this topic a lot, my opinion is that both of their sons (Gershom and Eliezer) were probably not small children at the time of this incident, which would add another element of awkwardness when Zipporah (probably reluctantly) performed the circumcision. I could, of course, be wrong about this.”
Putting that last bit of speculation aside, there is another aspect to this that bears mentioning. In his commentary on Exodus, Umberto Cassuto reads this as Zipporah saying in effect, “I have delivered you from death, and your return to life makes you my bridegroom a second time, this time my blood bridegroom, a bridegroom acquired through blood.” Without having read any more on this particular interpretation, it does sound reasonable.
Alright, having wrestled with various aspects of the story and possibilities above, here is a tentative scenario:
The reason Moses had not already circumcised Gershom (and likely not Eliezer, either) at this point was that Zipporah had argued against it and he — for who knows how many months or years — had acquiesced. But now, Moses needed to fulfill his covenant obligations before taking on his leadership role for the Israelites. This included circumcising his sons. God apparently needed to prod Moses into following through on this, so He (or an angelic messenger) showed up at the “lodging place” and said, in essence, “It’s do-or-die time! Fulfill your covenant obligation toward your firstborn!” Moses still hesitated, perhaps frozen in fear. Realizing that YHWH was not to be trifled with, Zipporah took action, circumcising Gershom and throwing the foreskin — as per the NASB, CSB, for example — at Moses’ feet in disgust. (In the “illness” scenario, this act would have initiated Moses’ recovery, as well.) Alternatively, Moses may have been procrastinating or vacillating on the circumcision issue for a long time and Zipporah was sick of it and wanted him to make a decision. When God showed up to force the matter, she took it upon herself to do what needed to be done, even if she didn’t like it. In accordance with God’s sovereign will, Zipporah saved Moses’ life and preserved the Covenant.
That’s sort of the way I see it playing out in my head, anyway. Of course, given the dearth of explanatory details in the account, I could be wrong on several points….
(H/T Gleason Archer; Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe; Pastor Kelly Williams; HCSB Study Bible; NIV Zondervan Study Bible)
