Apr
28
What to Make of This Weird Bible Passage?: Ex. 4:24-26 (part 2)
In case you missed it, last week we looked at what the ESV Study Bible and the Baker Illustrated Study Bible (CSB) have to say about God’s seemingly out-of-the-blue attempt on the life of Moses(?) and Zipporah’s appeasement of God by circumcising their firstborn son. As promised, this week we continue the investigation by looking at the NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible and the NET Full Notes Edition, which are indeed a bit more “substantial” in their commentary about this than the first two were.
NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible
“24 At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the Lord let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)” (Ex. 4:24-26 (NIV))
4:24-26 This bizarre scene presents a number of interpretive issues due to the ambiguity of the narrative. En route to Egypt, Yahweh appears when Moses and his family are camped for the night. The Hebrew text says that Yahweh encountered “him” and intended to kill “him,” but it offers no explanation of who exactly Yahweh intended to kill. Moses’ name actually does not appear in these verses at all in Hebrew, though many English translations substitute the proper name for one or two of the masculine pronouns. There are two possibilities for the referent of these masculine pronouns: Moses and Moses’ oldest son Gershom (2:22). Yahweh attempting to kill Moses seems unlikely in light of the trajectory of chs. 3-4, where Yahweh explicitly calls Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt. However, Yahweh may have been angry with Moses for not carrying out the covenant responsibility of circumcising his son (Ge 17:9-14). 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.
Zipporah delivers the male from this danger by circumcising her son and touching the foreskin, according to the Hebrew text, to “his feet” (see note on v. 25). Since Gershom has no role in the narrative, Yahweh was most likely angry with Moses over the issue of circumcision (not Gershom or Zipporah). Either Gershom was uncircumcised or he was circumcised by the Egyptian method where the foreskin was not completely removed (compare Jos 5:2-5). Moses also may have not been circumcised properly since he was raised as an Egyptian. Zipporah’s action of touching the foreskin to him may have been symbolically acted as a circumcision on Moses (since a real circumcision would have made him unable to travel for days; compare Ge 34:24-25). The circumcision fulfilled the covenantal obligation, so God relented.
4:25 feet The Hebrew phrase used here, leraglav — which may be literally rendered “to his feet” — likely refers to Moses’ feet, since Zipporah addresses Moses when calling him a “bridegroom of blood.” Further ambiguity arises with the reference to feet since this Hebrew word is also a euphemism for the genitals. bridegroom of blood Perhaps a condemnation on Moses’ failure to fulfill this covenantal obligation on his own. See note on Ex 4:24-26.
The NET Full Notes Edition is next and, as usual, I have left in the bracketed letters marking each translation note (tn) and study note (sn) for ease of reference…
NET Full Notes Edition
“24 Now on the way, at a place where they stopped for the night,[a] the Lord met Moses and sought to kill him.[b] 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to Moses’ feet,[c] and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood[d] to me.” 26 So the Lord[e] let him alone. (At that time[f] she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” referring to[g] the circumcision.)” (Ex. 4:24-26 (NET))
a. Exodus 4:24 tn Or “at a lodging place” or “at an inn.”
b. Exodus 4:24 sn The next section (vv. 24-26) records a rather strange story. God had said that if Pharaoh would not comply he would kill his son — but now God was ready to kill Moses, the representative of Israel, God’s own son. Apparently, one would reconstruct that on the journey Moses fell seriously ill, but his wife, learning the cause of the illness, saved his life by circumcising her son and casting the foreskin at Moses’ feet (indicating that it was symbolically Moses’ foreskin). The point is that this son of Abraham had not complied with the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. No one, according to Exod 12:40-51, would take part in the Passover-exodus who had not complied. So how could the one who was going to lead God’s people not comply? The bold anthropomorphisms and the location at the border invite comparisons with Gen 32, the Angel wrestling with Jacob. In both cases there is a brush with death that could not be forgotten. See also, W. Dumbrell, “Exodus 4:24-25: A Textual Re-examination,” HTR 65 (1972): 285-90; T. C. Butler, “An Anti-Moses Tradition,” JSOT 12 (1979): 9-15; and L. Kaplan, “And the Lord Sought to Kill Him,” HAR 5 (1981): 65-74.
c. Exodus 4:25 tn Heb “to his feet.” The referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The LXX has “and she fell at his feet” and then “the blood of the circumcision of my son stood.” But it is clear that she caused the foreskin to touch Moses’ feet, as if the one were a substitution for the other, taking the place of the other (see U. Cassuto, Exodus, 60).
d. Exodus 4:25 sn U. Cassuto explains that she was saying, “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” (Exodus, 60-61).
e. Exodus 4:26 tn Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
f. Exodus 4:26 tn Or “Therefore.” The particle אָז (ʾaz) here is not introducing the next item in a series of events. It points back to the past (“at that time,” see Gen 4:26) or to a logical connection (“therefore, consequently”).
g. Exodus 4:26 tn The Hebrew simply has לַמּוּלֹת (lammulot, “to the circumcision[s]”). The phrase explains that the saying was in reference to the act of circumcision. Some scholars speculate that there was a ritual prior to marriage from which this event and its meaning derived. But it appears rather that if there was some ancient ritual, it would have had to come from this event. The difficulty is that the son is circumcised, not Moses, making the comparative mythological view untenable. Moses had apparently not circumcised Eliezer. Since Moses was taking his family with him, God had to make sure the sign of the covenant was kept. It may be that here Moses sent them all back to Jethro (18:2) because of the difficulties that lay ahead.
I like that the NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible spent some time going through the rationale for figuring out who God was mad at and who He may have been threatening to kill (and why). I also appreciate that it pointed out that Moses and/or Gershom may have been previously circumcised via the Egyptian method — a point rarely recognized or brought up but which editor Michael Heiser likely made a point to include. (Heiser also discusses it in, for example, I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible.) The FISB also brings up the question (which I mentioned in part 1) of whether “feet” should be understood literally or euphemistically.
The NET has a few more translation notes, of course, and the study notes cover some of the same points as the FISB. But, I was a little disappointed that it didn’t have additional helpful discussion. I was surprised that note “b” said, “Apparently, one would reconstruct that on the journey Moses fell seriously ill…”. While illness is one way that God might have attacked Moses — there are other examples of Him using this method, and it usually involves an angel as the agent — there is nothing in the immediate text to assume this. I think the NET editors could have done a better job in addressing this. Another thing that concerned me was the naming (in note “g”) of Eliezer as the son who got circumcised. Although the child is not named in the Hebrew here, I thought it was pretty much agreed that Gershom was Moses’ firstborn. So, either there is a more obscure argument that the NET editors were relying on for Eliezer’s primacy, or somebody goofed and the editors (or other proofreaders?) didn’t catch it.
Overall, while all four study Bibles had helpful notes on this passage, I’d say the NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible was clearly the most helpful this time around.
This concludes my planned “trilogy” addressing the most baffling Bible passages. However, if I come across another that comes close, I reserve the right to give it similar treatment.
