Apr
21
What to Make of This Weird Bible Passage?: Ex. 4:24-26 (part 1)
It is time for the third entry (each in two parts) in this series, which looks at particularly baffling passages from the Old Testament that are often glossed over in study Bibles and Bible commentaries. The first entry was focused on Gen. 6:1-4 (“sons of God” and the Nephilim), and the second examined Gen. 9:18-29 (Noah’s nakedness, Ham’s sin, and the Curse of Canaan). For the next couple weeks, we’ll take a look at Ex. 4:24-26, which relates a strange but brief account of an angry YHWH coming after Moses and his family, when they were traveling from Midian to Egypt.
As usual, I will be referring to four of the best study Bibles there are. This week we go to the ESV Study Bible and the Baker Illustrated Study Bible (CSB) study notes for explanation about what was possibly, even likely, going on.
ESV Study Bible
“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))
4:24-26 The events narrated in these verses are significant not only for what they tell but also for what they show. Not only has the Lord remembered his covenant promises (2:24), but his people are also called to remember the conditions of the covenant. Moses is held responsible for the provisions of the covenant with Abraham that required him to circumcise his sons (Gen. 17:9-14). Failure to be circumcised may lead to being “cut off” (some form of severe punishment from God; see notes on Gen. 17:14; Ex. 12:15; Lev. 7:11-36; Num. 9:6-14). Moses’ failure to circumcise his son could have led to his death, had it not been for his wife’s action. Once again, Moses’ life is preserved through the actions of another, this time through his wife Zipporah.
Baker Illustrated Study Bible (CSB)
“24 On the trip, at an overnight campsite, it happened that the Lord confronted him and intended to put him to death. 25 So Zipporah took a flint, cut off her son’s foreskin, threw it at Moses’s feet, and said, “You are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. At that time she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood,” referring to the circumcision.” (Ex. 4:24-26 (CSB))
4:24-31 There is a thematic link between this mention of firstborn [v.23] and the next puzzling incident (4:24-26). The Lord encounters Moses on the way back to Egypt, threatening to kill “him” (either Moses or the firstborn son) because Moses has not circumcised his son (4:24). Even though Zipporah, his Midianite wife, knows the proper action, her epithet suggests revulsion on her part. Nevertheless she immediately circumcises her son (4:25). While her repeated charge that Moses is a “bridegroom of blood” is cryptic (4:26), there are several possible symbolic connections to consider. The sign of the covenant with Abraham is circumcision, and those who are not circumcised will be cut off, just as the foreskin is cut off (cf. Gn 17:14). When Moses fled from Egypt forty years prior, he may have intentionally rejected the practices that defined him as an Israelite. Since he is the chosen deliverer of God’s people, his failure to live up to the covenant stipulations threatens both his immediate family and the larger covenant family descended from Abraham. To make that right involves the shedding of blood. Further, the matter of protecting the Israelite firstborn in Egypt will also involve shedding the blood of a Passover lamb. The rabbis of late antiquity repeatedly affirmed the connection between the blood of circumcision and that of the Passover sacrifice.
Honestly, I was a bit disappointed by the brevity of the ESVSB’s notes on this. It was good information, but I had hoped that it would say more about the uncertainties in the passage (e.g., whether it was Moses or Gershom that YHWH intended to kill) as touched on in the BISB. The BISB also brings up at least a couple other notable connections/observations. Surprisingly, neither mentioned the question of a literal vs. symbolic meaning for “feet” (v. 25). I have a feeling that both the NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible and NET Full Notes Edition that we look at next week will have even more comprehensive notes on the passage.
P.S. Incidentally, I wanted to make a couple sidebar observations about the images of the painting I inserted in this post and the one I plan to insert in “part 2” next week. First, the clothing seen in the paintings is probably more accurate to the time in which the artists (in Europe?) were alive than it is to what ancient Hebrews wore. Second, 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.
