MONDAY
Our campaign is called the Presence of God and we are going through the life of Moses. Last week we looked at Moses’ first encounter with God at the burning bush when God calls him to return to Egypt, where God will deliver his people from slavery. After a long conversation where God assures Moses that of his powerful presence going with him, Moses finally agrees to go. This is where we pick up the story this week.
This text isn’t going to be our focus this week but since it deals with the presence of God it would be good to address it.
Exodus 4:18–28 (NIV)
Moses Returns to Egypt
18 Then Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, “Let me return to my own people in Egypt to see if any of them are still alive.”
Jethro said, “Go, and I wish you well.”
19 Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all those who wanted to kill you are dead.” 20 So Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt. And he took the staff of God in his hand.
21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’ ”
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.)
27 The Lord said to Aaron, “Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.” So he met Moses at the mountain of God and kissed him. 28 Then Moses told Aaron everything the Lord had sent him to say, and also about all the signs he had commanded him to perform.
First, God reassures Moses that nobody who wanted to kill his remains alive. So that would set his mind at ease a little bit. Then God tells Moses to do all the miraculous signs that God has empowered him to do. God then gives Moses some more specific information that he had only eluded to before in 3:19—Pharaoh isn’t going to let them go easily. Here, God says that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart. This is obviously a big statement and one that we will discuss more next week. But for today let’s just note that there will be resistance, and it is all according to plan. Verses 22-23 are foreshadowing what will happen in Egypt with the final plague. This, again, is an example of God turning Pharaoh’s evil upon his own head.
The focus for today is the rather strange story in vv. 24-26. The author, Moses himself, just kinda breezes through this part of the story and expects that his readers know what he’s talking about. Modern readers however, will likely do a double take and walk away scratching their heads in confusion. It’s a weird story for sure and certainty as to it’s meaning is impossible. Yet, let’s give it our best effort.
First, let’s make a couple of exegetical observations. It’s unclear if God is about to kill Moses or his son. Moses is the more likely option. The text specifically says that Zipporah uses a flint knife. Bronze was the more common knife in this day but the flint knives were made directly from sharp stones and were preferable for religious ceremonies. In Joshua 5:2 the Lord specifically tells Joshua to make flint knives to be used for circumcision. “Feet” here may be a euphemism for genitalia (see also Isa. 6:2; 36:12; Deut. 28:57). Foot could be used to refer to everything from the hip to the toes, similar to how we would say “the lower body”. “Moses” also doesn’t occur in v. 25. Translators make the decision who the pronoun is referring to so it could be Moses or it could be Moses’ son. The meaning of the phrase “bridegroom of blood” is unknown. “Bridegroom” could have been a ritualistic term that was used at circumcision and therefore carried special meaning to the original audience. It could also be a mistranslation of an older word, now lost, for circumcision. That would make sense of the parenthetical comment in the text. Whatever the meaning of the saying, we know it refers to circumcision in some right.
The scene clearly relates to circumcision which was the sign of the covenant that had been established generations prior with Abraham (Gen. 17:13-14; 21:4). Those who are uncircumcised are to be cut off from Israel because they are guilty of breaking the covenant (Gen. 17:14). Moses at this point likely has two sons, Eliezer and Gershom (”sons” is plural in 4:20). Apparently he had not circumcised one or both of them. Remember, circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant with his people and Moses is traveling to deliver God’s people from slavery and reaffirm their covenant with God. He is to be the one to ratify the covenant with God’s people and he has not performed the sign that indicates the covenant relationship himself. That’s a problem and God is here emphasizing the importance of this covenantal symbol. The fact that God didn’t immediately kill Moses reveals this is a warning and God is moving Moses and Zipporah to faithfulness to his covenant.
Moses’ failure to circumcise his son(s) could indicate one of two things. It could indicate a half-hearted obedience. He and Zipporah had likely talked about it since she immediately responds by performing the circumcision. In this framework Moses is learning the severe punishment of disobedience to the covenant stipulations. Alternatively, perhaps Moses was torn between his Egyptian, Hebrew and now Midian identities. Maybe he wasn’t fully, exclusively committed to Yahweh at this point and his failure to circumcise his son(s) was an indication of Moses “keeping his options open” to the worship of the Egyptian and/or Midianite gods. Some scholars have suggested that the Midianites circumcised men when they were betrothed to be married. If this is the case Moses, perhaps out of respect for Jethro and Zipporah, whose house he was living in, followed that practice instead of the Hebrew practice of circumcising his sons on the 8th day. Now that Moses is out of Jethro’s house God is requiring him to perform the circumcision.
It is interesting that Moses even chooses to mention this story in the first place. As the author he could have easily left this out as it is a side story to the main narrative. So why did he include it? I think the main reason is to indicate the required wholehearted dedication to the Lord. Whatever the reason Moses didn’t circumcise his son(s), he wasn’t wholeheartedly devoted to obeying the Lord and exclusively following him. Now that he is out of Jethro’s house, remember he was a priest of Midian, God is requiring Moses to follow his law exclusively.
Also, it’s interesting to note that through the first 4 chapters the role of women in the narrative. Moses has been saved by two midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, his mom, Jochebed (Ex. 6:20), his sister Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Pharaoh’s daughter, and now his wife, Zipporah. In comparison to other Ancient Near East texts the Bible greatly elevates the role of women.
In keeping with our theme on the presence of God, this scene reveals the danger of God. God is holy. He requires obedience and covenant faithfulness from his people. Approaching a holy God while unholy is a dangerous affair. As Dallas Willard has said, “God is not mean, but he is dangerous.” Or as C.S. Lewis writes of Aslan, “Of course he isn’t a tame lion, but he is good.” Glory to God, we are now made righteous and holy through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. So we can experience the presence of God in the righteousness of Christ (Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19). Yet, it is important as Christians to walk in righteousness and repentance of our sins (Heb. 10:26-31).