Bible Study Exodus 4:22

[Fedusenko]

Exodus 4:24-26 is a particular passage that baffles many, but honestly it seems so simple. It is the story where YHWH comes to kill 'him' and Zipporah circumcises her son before YHWH can kill 'him'. 'Him' is the uncertain portion for scholars. Most put Moses as 'him'. As I read in the KJV and the JPH Masoretic translation it leaves Moses out of the picture for this moment in time at an encampment along the way to Egypt. Previously God had spoken to Moses regarding the first-born sons of Eqypt. Moses, having not circumcised his son, was in transgression of the law and God not wanting a hypocritical leader sought to kill Moses' first-born. Zipporah, being a Midianite who did not circumcise till much later, jumped to the task to save her son, but abhorred the task evident by her comments to YHWH.

The part that especially interests me is that she touches 'his' leg with the foreskin. Again, most scholars attribute 'his' to Moses' leg, but as I said earlier, Moses seems to be absent in this portion of Exodus. Other relate 'his' to YHWH, but I believe there would have been more reverence in the pronoun 'his' as 'His'. I can only imagine that 'his' must mean the baby's leg. But why would Zipporah do this?

I met a man that had two passages of the bible weighing on him. Isiah 63 and Revelation 19:16. He asked me to look at them and let me know my thoughts on them.

Isiah 63 begins with a vision of Christ coming in a garmet drenched in blood. It looks as if He had been pressing grapes and the juices stained His garments, but Christ corrects Isiah stating that it is the blood of his enemies. That He alone destroyed them.

Revelations 19:16 speaks of Christ's name being written on his robe and his thigh. His name is King of Kings, Lord of Lords. His name is in two places, his robes and his thigh. Isiah plainly states that the blood on His garments are from his enemies. Can His name written on is thigh be from the circumcision? Can it be one of the signs of YHWH spoken of in Genesis? Could it also be the plural meaning of His name, both vengeance and salvation?

I would appreciate thoughts on the subject.

 

[Fedusenko]

Ignore this. Sorry.

 

[Fedusenko]

Ignore this. Sorry.

 

[Fedusenko]

And to drive my point further...

If the Messiah is our gateway to salvation, then is the name on his thigh our 'passover' smear? Is circumcision another shadow of something greater to come?
Another interesting note, Abraham made his servant promise to find his son a specific kind of wife. To seal the deal they swore on it in an unusual fashion. The servant put his hand on the inside of Abraham's thigh. Some say it is a euphamism for how the Greeks 'testified' in court by holding their testicles while on the stand and if found in a lie their testicles would be removed, thus ending his family line. Others say that it is physically the hand on the thigh as the thigh is the closest you can get to the circumcision covenant with YHWH, the physical connection with Him (because of your sacrifice), thus the most sacred part of your body. Could it be instead that there is a part of circumcision that has been lost, but is alluded to in Exodus, the touching of the pubis to the leg, thus leaving a smear of blood and it is this that they are making an oath on? That would be the ultimate oath, one made on the name of the Messiah...

I admit this could be in error, but it has plagued me for sometime now. The Exodus 4:25 is very vague, but then again, it isn't. Please share your thoughts on the subject and sorry for the long post and the two screw up posts.

 

[jasoncran]

the lord sought to slay moses for he didnt circumise his son.

look to the sages or adam clarke and see what they say.

 

[Fedusenko]

Thanks for replying. I was hoping that you would, but I am a bit confused. You say that God came to kill Moses, but then lead me to text that says He came to kill Moses' son in Clarke's Commentary. Are you making a comment as too what you believe happened or giving varying views on the matter. It is a very obscure passage in the bible, so there are a slew of ideas about it. I have also read many Rabbinical commentaries and they seem to make wild deductions.

I have always assumed that Zipporah didn't want anything to do with YHWH as she was a Midianite. Although, to the credit of one Jewish commentator, it may have been equally likely that she of her father, Jethro, did not practice idolatry as she and her sisters tended the flock themselves and not hire any workers. Being different in a community in this way could have ostracized them which would make since why they were being bullied by other shepherds at the well at Moses' arrival.

It is also possible that, as another Jewish commentator suggested, that Moses promised Jethro the first-born be raised as an idolater in Midianite fashion, thus a lack of circumcision.

The KJV version of the passage state that Zipporah cast the pubis at his feet. The word cast replaced was 'naga' which has a variety of meanings which include to have sexual contact, to strike, or to simply touch. Naga can also be used in the figurative since like, "God touched their hearts". The same spelling also means to plague,stroke, wound, or dishonor. This second meaning is rooted in the first.

The word that feet is used for is 'regel'. It means foot, or by implication, a step or journey. It's usage can also be extended to include the leg as it is clearly done in 1 Samuel 17:6.

While "cast at his feet" may be a possible translation, there very easily could be more translations than this. I find it hard to believe that Zipporah would dishonor YHWH by throwing foreskin at Him if she was afraid He would kill her son. I don't see Moses at the scene because he is not mentioned by name (again translations assumed that was there so they added his name).

 

[Fedusenko]

Exodus 4:22 is YHWH telling Moses that He will kill the first-borns of the Egytians. Moses, likely being circumcised as he was weened by his mother, was then an Israelite, but may have easily not worshiped YHWH as he was raised by Pharoh's daughter, in Egyptian ways, and later married a Midianite woman who did not worship YHWH. It is very reasonable that Moses did not worship YHWH until the burning bush. Nor is it unthinkable that God would use a defiant character and change his heart to do His work. This would explain why Moses had not circumcised his son.

More possibility according to Wiki

The Hebrew for “bridegroom of blood†written as “hatan dimim,†is derived from a Semitic root verb which means “perform marriage.†In the Arabic language this phrase is linked to Hebrew, but means “perform circumcision.†In ancient Akkadian language related to Arabic and Aramaic/Hebrew, this phrase means “to protect.â€

This takes away the seemingly spiteful reproach by Zipporah and turns it to a blessing.

Lastly, I do not believe that this could have been a second son. As far as I am aware, there is no specific mention of two children when Moses leaves Midian. Exodus 4:20 uses the word sons translated from 'ben' which can mean multiple sons, but also means a single son, a group of young men, or even both sons and daughters collectively. It is then an assumption that Moses leaves with two sons. It isn't till Exodus 18 that the two sons are first mentioned. It is likely that Zipporah could have been pregnant with Eleizer during her return to Midian.

 

[jasoncran]

moses has two sons named. gershom and elizier.

jeff if you read this i stand corrected.

ok what adam clarke says seems to be the correct view. i suggest pming stovebolts. he will have something to say. he is more knowledgeable on ancient judaism then i am.

 

[Fedusenko]

Two sons, correct, but according to Strong's concordance the word that is used for sons before he leaves for Egypt is the same that is used for the singular form. So without more detail we don't know if Moses did have two sons at this point, though it seems like he could have, that doesn't mean he did. Otherwise, wouldn't there have been 2 circumcisions? That was the secondary point of this topic.

My primary point is to gather thoughts on the possible connection of Zipporah's action with leaving a mark of blood on her first born (or anyone else for that matter) and the passover mark on the doorposts and lintel. It being the first sign of YHWH could also be the name on the Messiah's thigh upon his return in Revelation.

I will PM Stevebolts about it. And thank you.

 

[jasoncran]

the sages do say moses had two sons.

its stovebolts that talked about this thread to me over the phone.

 

[stovebolts]

Hello all,
It would be great if this thread could be moved to the Bible Study forum :yes

Fed,

I like the line your going down and it's certainly worth entertaining. Only a few things though if I could be so humble, and perhaps this might weave just a nicely.

If we look at the Medianites, we see that they came from Abraham's second wife Keturah, so at this point I don't see any issue with them knowing of YHVH, though it is certain that they are not devoted entirely to YHVH. It is not until a sect of them change wander into Canaan and they become known as the Kenites. But this is just a side note.

If we look at verse 2:22, we see Moses 1st born son Gershom and we get the meaning of that name. It is certain that Gershom was circumcised on the 8th day in accordance with the covenant with Abraham or Ziporrah would have had to circumcise both children, and Gershom would have been a man at that time.

We then have a very long period of time where Moses is tending flock. 40 Years I believe the text says before Moses gets the call to return to Egypt.

In verse 4:22 we see that Moses is on fire and in a hurry to get to Egypt and the text says that he takes his sons. That's plural. But what of this second son? Who is he?

In Exodus 18:4 we are given the name of the second son of Moses. His name is Eliezer, and the verse gives why he was called Eliezer.

Let's go back to Exodus 4 and see how this sounds.

In summary, Moses gets his marching orders to go to Egypt. Ziporrah is pregnant and gives birth to a son. Moses is focused on God's task to go to Egypt and neglects the covenant with Abram (circumcision). God isn't happy about this and ziporrah circumcises their baby Eliezer.

How's that sound?

What that changes is that Eliezer was the second born. To weave this into your theology, look at all the second born children who rose to the occation. Moses was second born, Jacob was second born... Solomon was first born of David, ... Jesus was second born of David.... Adam was first... Seems like something to play with anyway huh?

thoghts?

 

[Fedusenko]

I like the way you think.

What do you think of zipporahs reaction, then. Did she do it for YHWH or for her child. Was her bridegoom comment one that implied protection or one made in bitterness.

What of "she cast it to his feet". Do you believe it is possible that marking the leg with the bloodied pubis could have been a shadow of the passover offering in Egypt? That something could have been lost in Egypt and this is the hint. Is it possible that I am looking for adventure where there really isn't anything?

Probably on that last one...

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Fed,

Exodus 4:24-26 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

If we look at the text, we see that it was Moses who was at the inn. It is purported by the sages that Moses did not want to wait the three days for healing after the circumcision and reasoned the circumcision could wait until he returned. The text bears out later that Moses did indeed believe he would be in and out of Egypt in a short time which we know was not the case (5:22)

So we see that the LORD sought to kill Moses for this line of reasoning and upholds the importance and significance Covenant and circumcision. This shows us the why you asked in regard to Zipporrah. She did it for her husband Moses as supported by her reply, "A bloody husband thou art" because she almost lost her husband due to circumcision.

What of "she cast it to his feet". Do you believe it is possible that marking the leg with the bloodied pubis could have been a shadow of the passover offering in Egypt? That something could have been lost in Egypt and this is the hint. Is it possible that I am looking for adventure where there really isn't anything?

This is very intriguing to me and it is something worth exploring for sure.

What I like about your connection to this event is it's significance between the covenant God made with Abraham (Circumcision), which marked out God's people with the Passover is that the Passover also marked out God's faithful people. However, it wasn't a physical marking such as circumcision, but it was a marking by the blood of the lamb.. and we know that there were un-circumcised that were saved that night by the blood of the lamb.

As far as what was lost in Egypt... We see many people killed. Which is why after many die in the Red Sea and Miriam and the others rejoice in victory, God takes them to the bitter waters of Marah (Chapter 15) and verse 27 refers to the 12 tribes and the 70 elders. Victory was bitter sweet while Jesus speaks of a well of living water.. but that's for another day perhaps.

I am enjoying this adventure. Let's see where it takes us while remaining grounded in the scriptures

Oh... I won't be back until Monday. Please let me know if you need me to clarify anything I've said. Thus far I've given you my "clif notes" version and it's a little relaxed if you can tell.

 

[Fedusenko]

Are you suggesting that according to Exodus 5:22 YHWH remained at a certain physical place for Moses to return to if needed? Very interesting Mr. Smithers...

I still don't see how we can say with any certainty that Moses was at the inn/encampment. I just don't see the evidence to support that. There is just a complete lack of proper nouns in the passage. Also, there is an undetermined expanse of time from when Moses was speaking with God about Egypt in 4:22 and 4:24.

If we were to follow strict English grammar, then the him referred to in "and the Lord sought to kill him would refer to the first born, grown-up Gershom, as mentioned in the previous sentence. If he was the object in question, and the 'house' (all the required members of the family) did not have the sign, then it makes sense that 4:24 follows God threatening to kill the first born.

and we know that there were un-circumcised that were saved that night by the blood of the lamb.

If this was a shadow of the passover, is this why circumcision was not required upon the Israelites' departure? They surely would not have faired very well traveling through a desert, tugging along Egypt's gold with Pharaoh hot on their tail. Travel, circumcision and fever are not a good combination.

However, it wasn't a physical marking such as circumcision, but it was a marking by the blood of the lamb..

This is the pinnacle of my interest on the subject. What I am curious is the wording "she cast it at his feet". That is not the only way to translate the passage. It can also be translated to say she marked his leg with it.

When the Israelites were nomads the only constant was themselves. They mark themselves. In egypt, they had homes so they mark their homes which they left (for the Egyptians to see day after day), when they received the commandments and were heading to a land for themselves, they were told to fasten them to their door posts and gates. I believe this is to show everyone who they served.

 

[stovebolts]

hey there Fed,

I'm on my phone so please excuse me.

I'm not sure how you concluded whatever you concluded regarding my use of 5:22. The only way I can address you reply is to say I must have done a poor job articulating my view. I shall again attempt to do a better job.

moses is fired up to go to egypt and save israel from their oppression. Moses believes this feat will be quick. In and out. In his haste, he believes iy is more important to do the task God has tasked him with and reasons the circumcission of his second child can be delayed until he returns from his task as circumsission requires 3 days of healing before they could travel again.

God is angered that Moses is not keeping his covenant and decides to kill Moses. Zipporah steps in and does the circumcision of her second son and lays the foreskin at the feet of her dying husband and Moses is restored to her.

moses goes to egypt and speaks with pharoh. He denies his request and penalizes the hebrews. Moses isn't in good standing with the hebrews and questions God in his defeat. Hence 5:22 where moses realizes this isn't going to be an in and out situation.

btw, ruth slept @ the feet of boaz... This is cultural. Its been awhile, but perhaps I'll mull over some books tomorrow and sharpen up on the matter before making any type of conclusion.

as an fyi,

 

[jasoncran]

hebrew doesnt translate well into english at times and the translators often must try read the thought in the original tounge and then translate it as closest to the direct method as they can when using the fe type.

de is just a thought translation, ie the niv does this.

so keep that in mind with the kjv,nkjv.

 

[reba]

This is an interesting read.... I hope it continues...

 

[Elijah674]

This is an interesting read.... I hope it continues...

Exod. 4
[24] And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

[25] Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
[26] So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Was not this the Rock (Christ) that followed them?

 

[stovebolts]

Exod. 4
[24] And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

[25] Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
[26] So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Was not this the Rock (Christ) that followed them?

Before moving into types and shadows my good Brother and friend, I think it best to relay the plain meaning of scripture first.

then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

That is to say, "My Bridegroom (Moses) would have been killed because he did not circumcise his son (Eliezer)".

I would ask that you meet me where I'm at and explain how this is a type of Christ.

 

[stovebolts]

I still don't see how we can say with any certainty that Moses was at the inn/encampment. I just don't see the evidence to support that. There is just a complete lack of proper nouns in the passage. Also, there is an undetermined expanse of time from when Moses was speaking with God about Egypt in 4:22 and 4:24.

I'm not an engligh major, but we can be certain that Moses was at the inn. If you are looking for proper English within the Hebrew writings, you'll be very disapointed I must say. For example, go to verse 20. It says that Moses took his wife and sons and returned to the land of Egypt. Yet in the next verse God says, "When you leave to go to Egypt". And if you look further into scripture, you'll see that after the incident at the inn, Moses sends his wife and two sons back to Midian so in actuality, they never go to Egypt. As far as the expanse of time between verse 22 and 24, get used to it... You'll find many Hebrew writings that do that.. just like verses 20 and 21. Having proper nouns in their proper place may hold value in our English writings, but you will do well by keeping in mind that the Ancient's thought differently than we do, and they articulated differently than we do, so just try and relax a little and read it for what it has to say. After all, it's living and active...

If we were to follow strict English grammar, then the him referred to in "and the Lord sought to kill him would refer to the first born, grown-up Gershom, as mentioned in the previous sentence. If he was the object in question, and the 'house' (all the required members of the family) did not have the sign, then it makes sense that 4:24 follows God threatening to kill the first born.

This would make no sense. Why would God kill the first born Gershom over circumcision. Circumcision dates back to Abram and we have no reason to believe that Gershom wasn't circumcised. Not only that, but scripture says that the child shall not be punished for the iniquity of the father so why would Gershom be put to death over the failure of Moses to comply? Furthermore, as I have pointed out earlier, 4:20 states that Moses brought his wife and sons. Sons is plural which means that Moses had at least two sons and scripture affirms this.
Exodus 18:3-4 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land: And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh:

Eliezer is connected with Moses return to Egypt, not Gershom so we can easily conclude that it was Eliezer who was circumcised by Zipporah and as we see,God did not Kill Moses either by plauge or by Pharaoh for his non-compliance to the circumcision of Eliezer.

What you are trying to do is take an idea and wrap these texts into that idea. Hey, I'm all for theology, but we have to get the story straight first. I even think you've got some great ideas, but don't force them.

If this was a shadow of the passover, is this why circumcision was not required upon the Israelites' departure? They surely would not have faired very well traveling through a desert, tugging along Egypt's gold with Pharaoh hot on their tail. Travel, circumcision and fever are not a good combination.

I think you've got your details a little awry. Scripture says,
Joshua 5:3-5 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.


So we see that the children who left Egypt were circumcised. It was those born in the wilderness that were not. How this relates to the passover relates to the crossing of the Jordan into the Promised land.

And by the way, Pharaoh and his army died when the Red Sea collapsed on them... It was Amalek who was so ignorant to challenge them afterwards.