I listened to your lecture on Exodus 4, Steve. In talking about this verse, you implied: the Lord did not really mean to kill Moses otherwise He would surely have easily done so. This would seem therefore to be a style of writing wherein intentions are attributed to God that aren`t actually intentions. I`m confused. Does this style of writing have a name (a bit like a "limited negative" now has a name)? If I could categorize it, I could deal with it better, I`m sure.And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met him and sought to kill him
Exodus 4 verse 24 - what style of writing is this?
Exodus 4 verse 24 - what style of writing is this?
Re: Exodus 4 verse 24 - what style of writing is this?
I would call it anthropomorphism. I think this would be the general understanding of it among most scholars as well.
Re: Exodus 4 verse 24 - what style of writing is this?
The Lord... was about to kill him. But Zipporah... (NIV)
Obviously, this begs the question... how did Zipporah KNOW the Lord was about to kill him?
She must have been tipped off (pardon the pun) in order to perform the circumcision. God obviously was wanting her to have that opportunity.
It should also be mentioned that some scholars don't think Moses was the target, but Gershom. The Hebrew text simply has the word 'him' in all 3 verses (4:24-26). The NIV has interpreted the 'him' for us by inserting Moses' name in v. 24 and v. 25. But if we insert the name Gershom, who actually is referred to directly (v. 25... her son's foreskin), the passage may make more sense.
I'll provide a brief commentary below, based mostly on the comments of commentator Douglas Stuart.
v. 24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Gershom and was about to kill him
COMMENTARY: Moses had just been told by God to tell Pharaoh that his firstborn son would be killed by God because Pharaoh had not listened to God (4:23). But Moses, presumably, has not listened to God either. His own first born son is not yet circumcised. Moses was about to experienced the death of his firstborn son just as Pharaoh (and for the same basic reason... disobedience).
v. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched his (Gershom's) feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said.
COMMENTARY: Zipporah somehow became aware that God was about to kill the uncircumcised Gershom, so she performed an impromptu circumcision ceremony. The flint knife was the proper tool for such a ceremony (Josh 5:2-9). Touching the removed foreskin to his feet (probably a euphemism for genitals) was, perhaps, part of the ceremony. What she said (which literally means 'blood relative') was also part of the ceremony. Calling Gershom a 'blood relative' was not a negative statement (as is usually the interpretation when the 'he' is considered to be Moses), but a positive statement included in the circumcision ceremony (akin to saying, "I circumcise you, my own flesh and blood"... that this was a ritual saying is implied by the end of v. 26). In sum, the entirety of v. 25 details the circumcision ceremony performed by Zipporah. Zipporah saved Gershom's life.
v. 26 So the LORD left him (Gershom) alone.
COMMENTARY: Gershom was spared because Zipporah did what Moses should have done. Moses disobedience had now been dealt with... his son was circumcised. This wrong being righted, he was now ready to confront the sins of others (Pharaoh).
Obviously, this begs the question... how did Zipporah KNOW the Lord was about to kill him?
She must have been tipped off (pardon the pun) in order to perform the circumcision. God obviously was wanting her to have that opportunity.
It should also be mentioned that some scholars don't think Moses was the target, but Gershom. The Hebrew text simply has the word 'him' in all 3 verses (4:24-26). The NIV has interpreted the 'him' for us by inserting Moses' name in v. 24 and v. 25. But if we insert the name Gershom, who actually is referred to directly (v. 25... her son's foreskin), the passage may make more sense.
I'll provide a brief commentary below, based mostly on the comments of commentator Douglas Stuart.
v. 24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Gershom and was about to kill him
COMMENTARY: Moses had just been told by God to tell Pharaoh that his firstborn son would be killed by God because Pharaoh had not listened to God (4:23). But Moses, presumably, has not listened to God either. His own first born son is not yet circumcised. Moses was about to experienced the death of his firstborn son just as Pharaoh (and for the same basic reason... disobedience).
v. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched his (Gershom's) feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said.
COMMENTARY: Zipporah somehow became aware that God was about to kill the uncircumcised Gershom, so she performed an impromptu circumcision ceremony. The flint knife was the proper tool for such a ceremony (Josh 5:2-9). Touching the removed foreskin to his feet (probably a euphemism for genitals) was, perhaps, part of the ceremony. What she said (which literally means 'blood relative') was also part of the ceremony. Calling Gershom a 'blood relative' was not a negative statement (as is usually the interpretation when the 'he' is considered to be Moses), but a positive statement included in the circumcision ceremony (akin to saying, "I circumcise you, my own flesh and blood"... that this was a ritual saying is implied by the end of v. 26). In sum, the entirety of v. 25 details the circumcision ceremony performed by Zipporah. Zipporah saved Gershom's life.
v. 26 So the LORD left him (Gershom) alone.
COMMENTARY: Gershom was spared because Zipporah did what Moses should have done. Moses disobedience had now been dealt with... his son was circumcised. This wrong being righted, he was now ready to confront the sins of others (Pharaoh).
Re: Exodus 4 verse 24 - what style of writing is this?
I found this too (my paraphrase):
Moses was very afraid of Pharoah, enough to hinder his willingness to confront him. God, by motioning to kill him, underlined that He was really the one to fear, not Pharoah. A spur to obedience, even if a negative one.
(?)
Moses was very afraid of Pharoah, enough to hinder his willingness to confront him. God, by motioning to kill him, underlined that He was really the one to fear, not Pharoah. A spur to obedience, even if a negative one.
(?)
Re: Exodus 4 verse 24 - what style of writing is this?
matt wrote:
this story has always made me cringe for some reason.
TK
classic. thanks for the chuckle.She must have been tipped off (pardon the pun)
this story has always made me cringe for some reason.
TK