Before anyone can expect to get close to the meaning behind Exodus 4:24 it is an idea to place yourself in the culture and times of Moses. When Moses escaped from Egypt to avoid being put to death for killing an Egyptian official of the Pharaoh, where did he go? He fled to Midian, where he married Zipporah. It was when Moses was in Midian - a desert settlement near the Red Sea - he came in contact with God for the first time. A very frightening and confusing time for a tribesmen of the desert. A humble man not confident of his ability to speak in public - a recluse who just wanted to live in the wilderness, tend to his flock of goats, marry and father children. He had a live and let live kind of philosophy. That all changed! Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” (Exodus 3:13-15). It then can be said that his wife would have concluded that her husband Moses to me chosen by God. Furthermore, whatever Moses commanded her to do she had a duty to follow not only because he was her husband but God’s will had to be done or she could face dire consequences. It is precisely Zipporah’s fear of God and the chance that her son Gershom could be mistakenly included in the first-born son retribution installed for the Pharaoh. Her son had not been circumcised as a mark of the covenant made between God and Abraham. When God appeared to Moses while on his way back to Egypt, Zipporah had got it in her head that God would kill Gershom who had not been circumcised as a mark of being consecrated to God. So as to guarantee her son’s life she rushed to circumcise him immediately. Zipporah words to Moses, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” could infer that in her mind the God of Moses was not appeased unless a form of blood sacrifice was offered to divert His anger and judgement. In part, Zipporah was challenging God ( a God she did not fully understand and relate to) by not allowing her son to be circumcised. She also was rebuking God and saying she did not see the meaning why God insists on having blood as the only acceptable sacrifice. However, her mind was changed dramatically when God appeared and shocked her.
I personally have two hypotheses: First: It was Moses himself attacking his own son, because in the same chapter verse 16 says: “He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.” So, since Moses is as God to Aaron, we can hypothesize that he can be as God to all that he has dominion over them. Since his wife and his son are among his domains, so he is as God to them as well. My second hypothesis, I guess it is more logical, it is probably due to translation that made it so ambiguous. It is as follows: Most probably God meets Moses, the second part that says: “to kill him” is probably a command from the Lord to Moses to kill his son because he is not circumcised. And a similar of this happened to Abraham and Isaac, so it is not so strange to conceive. And Zipporah is forced to do the circumcision herself, because most probably she was not Jewish and circumcision was not in their traditions. Probably Moses asked to circumcise Gershom while they were in Midian, but their family did not allow for this and since Zipporah was among her own people, Moses was a stranger there, they were more powerful and their traditions did not allow for such an act, so Moses gave up knowing he will find time later on, that is why Moses couldn’t persuade them to do so. But now, since Zipporah is vulnerable and away from her people, it is in the middle of the night, in wilderness, far from her people in case she needed help; therefore it is the best time for Moses to do what God commanded him to do. Thus, she reproaches Moses’s approach and says that you have a bloodthirsty religion because your God requires blood. The fact that the prepuce touches Moses's feet, is that in the culture of Middle Easterners, feet is not considered very sacred, that is why in Luke 3:16 'says: "the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." that is another evident for how unworthy feet and sandals are. When Zipporah throws the prepuce and touches Moses's feet; that is an evident for how Zipporah was angry and how little she thought of the importance of prepuce to be so worthy that a father kills his own son over it. Thus, that is why it also says: "So the Lord let him alone." Since he is circumcised now, God doesn't bother with Zipporah's anger. I absolutely reject the idea that God came to kill Moses, that is very illogical and even childish. Why would God order Moses to go to Egypt to perform such a great deed and then come at night to kill his own hand? --- If you read this long comment and you reached here, I humbly thank you for being so patient and generous enough to give me your time.
How familiar with Hebrew laws was Moses when he grew up in the Pharaoh's house. He went in there at the age of 3 months and came out at 40. How much did he know about circumcision? He probably needed Aaron to be his interpreter because he could not speak Hebrew that well. Culturally, he was more Egyptian than Hebrew. So, when would he have learned the law of circumcision?
It's a good question because we don't know much about those years of Moses. We do know Moses was aware of his origins as an Israelite but we don't know how much he knew about being Israelite. Hebrews 11 mentions Moses as an example of faith in trading the wealth of Egypt for the difficulties of Israelite life but we don't know specifics.
It wasn’t Moses that was saved, it was his first born son. That’s why his wife got mad and threw it at his feet. She was a midianite and didn’t want her son circumcised
Just looking at how abrupt this mini-story is, and how it doesn’t fit in with surrounding text - it’s a data point in support of the JEDP theory that the Old Testament pulls from at least 4 separate sources. J = Jehovah E = Elohim D = Deuteronomy P = Priestly
The KJV clears up this passage. The Lord sought to kill Pharoahs first born son as he stated in verse 21. You have to read the whole context in the KJV.
God has no sons this is figurative speech. God is saying this is that I have chosen to cast my grace upon. Its 1st nation I've appointed to spread my religion. This also means it is not the last nation. Also the soul does not die, even in hell (eternal), that would be a form of mercy to criminals. Again this is figurative speech, a death of hearts, that part of the human that makes him able to love, which elevates him, allowing him to commune with his Lord. In that sense, its a state of being cut off from being in the holy presence & communication with his creator. A soul originally emanated from God, it goes through physical death & does not die, rather it returns to its creator. Prophets are not above the law & Moses is being taught a lesson in obedience along with Zipporah. The story of Zipporah is cut short, but Moses must have repented otherwise, he would have still got reprimanded inspite of the late circumcision. Now to say that there is something unique about blood & that God has some need for it to forgive is a stretch. Animal sacrifice is a show of self sacrifice through parting with wealth. peace
@@AaronVriesman The NIV is a PROTESTant Bible based on the beliefs of their cult founder Martin Luther, a real Joseph Smith of his day. This NIV Bible was in infancy sponsored by the adulterous, King James. The NIV/ king james is missing many books and passages that Luther aNd King James did not like. This resulted in the persecution of Catholics in England and Ireland. ThE NAB bible, New Jerusalem bibles are based in the original, not censored by Luther, full bible. The NAB is much longer than the NIV and is all together more authentic. The NiV/ KJV is merely a censored Catholic bible. The Catholics established Universal Christianity throughout the world for over 2000 years. Protestantism/ NIV is the creation of a Catholic hater named Martin Luther before 1700.
@Alez your anti-Protestant bias is showing. The truth is the OT canon was not universally set until Trent and many Catholics did not hold the Deuterocanonical books on the same level as the rest. One of these was Jerome. BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same claim to originality as Roman Catholics. Your propaganda does not work here.
@@AaronVriesman You are right...wars have been fought over our disagreements. Christ is both of our saviors. In the battle against evil we are on the same side just different teams.
Before anyone can expect to get close to the meaning behind Exodus 4:24 it is an idea to place yourself in the culture and times of Moses.
When Moses escaped from Egypt to avoid being put to death for killing an Egyptian official of the Pharaoh, where did he go? He fled to Midian, where he married Zipporah.
It was when Moses was in Midian - a desert settlement near the Red Sea - he came in contact with God for the first time. A very frightening and confusing time for a tribesmen of the desert. A humble man not confident of his ability to speak in public - a recluse who just wanted to live in the wilderness, tend to his flock of goats, marry and father children. He had a live and let live kind of philosophy. That all changed!
Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” (Exodus 3:13-15).
It then can be said that his wife would have concluded that her husband Moses to me chosen by God. Furthermore, whatever Moses commanded her to do she had a duty to follow not only because he was her husband but God’s will had to be done or she could face dire consequences.
It is precisely Zipporah’s fear of God and the chance that her son Gershom could be mistakenly included in the first-born son retribution installed for the Pharaoh. Her son had not been circumcised as a mark of the covenant made between God and Abraham.
When God appeared to Moses while on his way back to Egypt, Zipporah had got it in her head that God would kill Gershom who had not been circumcised as a mark of being consecrated to God. So as to guarantee her son’s life she rushed to circumcise him immediately.
Zipporah words to Moses, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” could infer that in her mind the God of Moses was not appeased unless a form of blood sacrifice was offered to divert His anger and judgement.
In part, Zipporah was challenging God ( a God she did not fully understand and relate to) by not allowing her son to be circumcised. She also was rebuking God and saying she did not see the meaning why God insists on having blood as the only acceptable sacrifice.
However, her mind was changed dramatically when God appeared and shocked her.
PaulHodgeProductions - thank you for explaining this! It was very helpful to me. God bless you!
I personally have two hypotheses:
First: It was Moses himself attacking his own son, because in the same chapter verse 16 says: “He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.”
So, since Moses is as God to Aaron, we can hypothesize that he can be as God to all that he has dominion over them. Since his wife and his son are among his domains, so he is as God to them as well.
My second hypothesis, I guess it is more logical, it is probably due to translation that made it so ambiguous. It is as follows: Most probably God meets Moses, the second part that says: “to kill him” is probably a command from the Lord to Moses to kill his son because he is not circumcised. And a similar of this happened to Abraham and Isaac, so it is not so strange to conceive.
And Zipporah is forced to do the circumcision herself, because most probably she was not Jewish and circumcision was not in their traditions. Probably Moses asked to circumcise Gershom while they were in Midian, but their family did not allow for this and since Zipporah was among her own people, Moses was a stranger there, they were more powerful and their traditions did not allow for such an act, so Moses gave up knowing he will find time later on, that is why Moses couldn’t persuade them to do so. But now, since Zipporah is vulnerable and away from her people, it is in the middle of the night, in wilderness, far from her people in case she needed help; therefore it is the best time for Moses to do what God commanded him to do. Thus, she reproaches Moses’s approach and says that you have a bloodthirsty religion because your God requires blood.
The fact that the prepuce touches Moses's feet, is that in the culture of Middle Easterners, feet is not considered very sacred, that is why in Luke 3:16 'says: "the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." that is another evident for how unworthy feet and sandals are. When Zipporah throws the prepuce and touches Moses's feet; that is an evident for how Zipporah was angry and how little she thought of the importance of prepuce to be so worthy that a father kills his own son over it. Thus, that is why it also says: "So the Lord let him alone." Since he is circumcised now, God doesn't bother with Zipporah's anger.
I absolutely reject the idea that God came to kill Moses, that is very illogical and even childish. Why would God order Moses to go to Egypt to perform such a great deed and then come at night to kill his own hand?
---
If you read this long comment and you reached here, I humbly thank you for being so patient and generous enough to give me your time.
Your second hypothesis is not bad at all. I've studied this passage more since I first preached on it and I would say some different things now.
Thanks for taking ur time explain this topic. I now understand it.
How familiar with Hebrew laws was Moses when he grew up in the Pharaoh's house. He went in there at the age of 3 months and came out at 40. How much did he know about circumcision? He probably needed Aaron to be his interpreter because he could not speak Hebrew that well. Culturally, he was more Egyptian than Hebrew.
So, when would he have learned the law of circumcision?
It's a good question because we don't know much about those years of Moses. We do know Moses was aware of his origins as an Israelite but we don't know how much he knew about being Israelite. Hebrews 11 mentions Moses as an example of faith in trading the wealth of Egypt for the difficulties of Israelite life but we don't know specifics.
the everlasting covenant.. ezekiel 44: 9.. Luke 2: 21/ John 7: 23.. acts 7: 8..
Titus 1: 10/ Acts 21: 21/ 28-30
Good teaching.
Thank you!
Moses was chosen by God, not by Aaron or the sister or finger pointers.
👍
A good lesson. Bizarre? NO
A good lesson.
Many say it is the most enigmatic story of the whole Old Testament
It wasn’t Moses that was saved, it was his first born son. That’s why his wife got mad and threw it at his feet. She was a midianite and didn’t want her son circumcised
You have an argument there. The text is ambiguous and open to various theories.
Just looking at how abrupt this mini-story is, and how it doesn’t fit in with surrounding text - it’s a data point in support of the JEDP theory that the Old Testament pulls from at least 4 separate sources.
J = Jehovah
E = Elohim
D = Deuteronomy
P = Priestly
The KJV clears up this passage. The Lord sought to kill Pharoahs first born son as he stated in verse 21. You have to read the whole context in the KJV.
I've studied the original Hebrew text and the Lord is about to kill either Moses or the son of Moses.
If Sipora will not circumzied her son what will be going on?
God has no sons this is figurative speech. God is saying this is that I have chosen to cast my grace upon. Its 1st nation I've appointed to spread my religion. This also means it is not the last nation.
Also the soul does not die, even in hell (eternal), that would be a form of mercy to criminals.
Again this is figurative speech, a death of hearts, that part of the human that makes him able to love, which elevates him, allowing him to commune with his Lord. In that sense, its a state of being cut off from being in the holy presence & communication with his creator.
A soul originally emanated from God, it goes through physical death & does not die, rather it returns to its creator.
Prophets are not above the law & Moses is being taught a lesson in obedience along with Zipporah.
The story of Zipporah is cut short, but Moses must have repented otherwise, he would have still got reprimanded inspite of the late circumcision.
Now to say that there is something unique about blood & that God has some need for it to forgive is a stretch.
Animal sacrifice is a show of self sacrifice through parting with wealth. peace
You lost me at "NIV"
What's wrong with the NIV?
right.. me too: Everything wrong with th NIV Bible
th-cam.com/video/7_sjTF1APAw/w-d-xo.html
@@AaronVriesman The NIV is a PROTESTant Bible based on the beliefs of their cult founder Martin Luther, a real Joseph Smith of his day. This NIV Bible was in infancy sponsored by the adulterous, King James. The NIV/ king james is missing many books and passages that Luther aNd King James did not like. This resulted in the persecution of Catholics in England and Ireland.
ThE NAB bible, New Jerusalem bibles are based in the original, not censored by Luther, full bible. The NAB is much longer than the NIV and is all together more authentic. The NiV/ KJV is merely a censored Catholic bible. The Catholics established Universal Christianity throughout the world for over 2000 years. Protestantism/ NIV is the creation of a Catholic hater named Martin Luther before 1700.
@Alez your anti-Protestant bias is showing. The truth is the OT canon was not universally set until Trent and many Catholics did not hold the Deuterocanonical books on the same level as the rest. One of these was Jerome. BTW, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have the same claim to originality as Roman Catholics. Your propaganda does not work here.
@@AaronVriesman You are right...wars have been fought over our disagreements. Christ is both of our saviors. In the battle against evil we are on the same side just different teams.
none of this is real
Do you mean that the events described here are not historical?
@@AaronVriesman well where's the evidence that this happened?
Which event specifically is in question?
@@AaronVriesman Dude you gotta be kidding right now. Do you know that none of the old testament is actually history.
@@seshenofthenile2363 even skeptical historians recognize the existence of many biblical characters.