Understanding a Mysterious Encounter—Exodus 4:24-26

Christian Publishing House

2 years ago

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Click here to purchase.

Dr. Norman L. Gisler’s Interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26

EXODUS 4:24 -Whom did the Lord meet at the encampment, and why did He seek to kill him?

PROBLEM: Exodus 4:24 states, “And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that the Lord met him and sought to kill him.” The verse does not explicitly say whom the Lord met in the encampment, but the context indicates that it was Moses. If so, why did God seek to kill him, since He had called him to lead Israel out of Egypt?

SOLUTION: First, it is clear that Moses had been selected by the Lord to he His instrument to deliver the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage and from the power of’ Pharaoh. But, as one of God’s covenant people, Moses was obligated to circumcise his sons on the eighth day. For one reason or another, Moses had not performed the rite of circumcision on his son as one of the covenant people of the Lord. It was not possible for the Lord to permit His chosen deliverer to represent Him to the people of Israel when he had not complied with the dictates of the covenant relationship himself. Apparently, God took this drastic measure to prompt Moses to obey Him, knowing that Moses would not willingly go against the wishes of his wife Zipporah. Zipporah performed the circumcision, perhaps because Moses was incapacitated from an affliction which the Lord had brought upon him. As soon as the circumcision was performed, formed, the Lord ceased from seeking to kill Moses.

Second, it is obvious that the Lord could have killed Moses suddenly if that were the intent of this incident. God certainly possessed the power to do this without delay. The incident clearly indicates that God’s purpose pose was to cause Moses to comply with His requirements. God obviously ously did not want to kill Moses. What He wanted was Moses’ obedience and complete commitment to His law, if he was going to be the great lawgiver to his people. – Thomas Howe; Norman L. Geisler. Big Book of Bible Difficulties, The: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation.

Dr. Gleason L. Archer’s Interpretation of Exodus 4:24-26

In Exodus 4:24 whom did the Lord meet? Why did He seek to kill him? What is the connection of the details of vv. 25–26 to the subject of v.24?

In Exodus 4:24 the antecedent of “him” is “Moses.” Why did God inflict him with such a near-fatal illness? In all probability it was because of Moses’ neglect of the covenant sign of circumcision in the case of his own son, Gershom. We are driven to this conclusion by the fact that Moses could not recover and escape the death that threatened him until Zipporah had performed this rite on their son (v.25). Obviously she was strongly averse to this measure and did it only under compulsion, for she parted company with her husband after reproaching him as “a bridegroom of blood.” It may have been that the Midianite practice was to reserve circumcision for lads who had just attained puberty rather than performing it on young and tender infants. But the Abrahamic tradition was to perform it when the child was eight days old (Gen. 17:12). Failure to receive circumcision meant that the boy would be “cut off from his people.”

Now since Moses had been appointed for a responsible role of leadership, he was duty bound to serve as a good example to the people of Israel and to show faithfulness to the covenant obligations inherited from Abraham. The only way Moses could be forced into taking this step—against his wife’s wishes—would be to afflict him with a potentially fatal illness. And so this is precisely what God did. – Archer, Gleason L. 1982. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

We Would Disagree with Both Geisler and Archer

Exodus 4:24 And it happened on the way at the lodging place that Jehovah met him and sought to kill him.
Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and caused it to touch his feet, and she said, “Surely a bridegroom of blood you are to me.”
Exodus 4:26 So he let him alone. Then she said, “A bridegroom of blood are you,” because of the circumcision.

The perplexing passage in Exodus 4:24-26, involving Jehovah, Moses, Zipporah, and their son, raises intricate questions about obedience, covenant, and divine intervention. This account, while initially obscure, unveils profound insights into covenantal obligations and the severity with which Jehovah regards them.

The Encounter at the Encampment

As Moses, Zipporah, and their sons journeyed back to Egypt, they encountered a divine intervention that threatened the life of one among them. The narrative does not specify the individual directly, but the context provides vital clues. Given Moses’ recent commission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, as detailed in Exodus 3:10, the threat to his life would seem incompatible with Jehovah’s plans. Thus, the focus shifts to one of his sons, underscoring the significance of covenantal fidelity.

The Covenant of Circumcision

The key to understanding this incident lies in the Abrahamic covenant, particularly the commandment concerning circumcision outlined in Genesis 17:14. This covenantal sign was a perpetual marker of allegiance to Jehovah, and failure to comply signified a breach of covenant, warranting severe consequences. Moses’ neglect to circumcise his son placed the child in jeopardy, highlighting the gravity of adhering to divine commandments.

Zipporah’s Decisive Action

Faced with the imminent threat posed by Jehovah’s angel, Zipporah undertook a decisive and symbolic act by circumcising her son and presenting the foreskin to the angel. This act was not merely a compliance with the ritual requirement but a profound acknowledgment of the covenantal relationship between Jehovah and His people. Zipporah’s actions and words, referring to the angel as “a bridegroom of blood,” symbolize her acceptance and reverence for the covenant. Her initiative rectified the breach and spared her son’s life, demonstrating the critical importance of obedience to Jehovah’s commandments.

Covenant Relationship and Submission

Zipporah’s reference to “a bridegroom of blood” signifies her recognition of the covenantal bond, akin to a marital relationship, where Jehovah is the husband, and His covenant people are the bride. This analogy is further echoed in Jeremiah 31:32, where Jehovah describes His relationship with Israel using marital imagery. Zipporah’s submission to the covenant through her actions reflects her acknowledgment of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the seriousness of the covenantal obligations.

Insights and Implications

This narrative, while specific in its historical context, speaks volumes about the broader principles of obedience, covenantal faithfulness, and the consequences of neglecting divine commandments. It underscores the necessity for God’s people to adhere strictly to His laws, understanding that such obedience is not merely a matter of ritual compliance but a profound expression of loyalty and submission to Jehovah’s sovereignty.

The encounter at the encampment serves as a reminder of the pervasive and enduring nature of covenantal relationships in the biblical narrative. It highlights the meticulous care with which Jehovah guards these relationships and the lengths to which He goes to ensure their integrity is maintained. Through Zipporah’s actions, the narrative also illustrates the role of individuals in upholding their covenantal duties, showcasing the impact of personal obedience on the broader community’s relationship with Jehovah.

In analyzing this passage, one gains a deeper appreciation for the complexity of the biblical text and the multifaceted ways in which it conveys principles of divine justice, mercy, and covenantal fidelity. The account of Exodus 4:24-26, far from being a mere historical footnote, emerges as a pivotal lesson on the consequences of neglecting divine commandments and the power of decisive obedience to alter the course of divine judgment.

The response provided to the question concerning Exodus 4:24-26 demonstrates a careful consideration of the biblical text, aligning with traditional evangelical scholarship in its emphasis on covenantal fidelity, obedience to God’s commandments, and the serious consequences of neglecting such obligations. The analysis is grounded in a literal and historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture, consistent with conservative evangelical principles.

Examination of Key Points:

Covenantal Obligation: The emphasis on the Abrahamic covenant and the requirement of circumcision as a sign of that covenant (Genesis 17:14) is biblically sound. This covenant is foundational to understanding Israel’s relationship with God and is consistently referenced throughout Scripture as a marker of faithfulness and identity.
Divine Intervention and Obedience: The interpretation that the life threatened was that of Moses’ son due to the failure to perform circumcision adheres to a literal understanding of the text. This perspective underscores the importance of obedience to God’s specific commandments, a theme recurrent throughout the Bible.
Zipporah’s Actions: The analysis of Zipporah’s decisive action to circumcise her son and her reference to a “bridegroom of blood” is a reasonable interpretation within evangelical scholarship. It highlights the individual’s role in covenantal fidelity and the broader implications of personal actions on one’s standing before God. The interpretation is careful to draw from the text itself and to situate Zipporah’s actions within the framework of covenantal theology.
Covenant Relationship and Submission: The analogy drawn between the covenantal relationship and a marital relationship, using Jeremiah 31:32 as a supporting reference, aligns with evangelical hermeneutics that recognize the metaphorical use of marriage to describe God’s relationship with His people.

Areas for Further Clarification:

While the response is theologically coherent and aligns with conservative evangelical viewpoints, a few areas might benefit from further clarification or alternative viewpoints within evangelical scholarship:

The Angel’s Identity: The response assumes the “him” Jehovah sought to kill was Moses’ son, based on the context and the covenantal obligation. Some scholars (Dr. Norman L. Geisler and Dr. Gleason L. Archer) suggest that the text ambiguously refers to Moses himself due to his leadership role and responsibility for his family’s covenantal fidelity. Exploring this viewpoint might enrich the analysis. However, this author would disagree.
Zipporah’s Understanding: The interpretation of Zipporah’s actions and words (“a bridegroom of blood”) as a submission to the covenant is plausible but could be expanded to consider her possible cultural perspective and the significance of her actions within her own understanding, which may not fully align with Israelite covenant theology.

When analyzing Zipporah’s actions and words in Exodus 4:24-26, considering her cultural background and personal understanding provides a greater context for interpreting this complex narrative. Zipporah was a Midianite, the daughter of Jethro, a priest of Midian. Her cultural and religious background would have been different from that of Moses and the Israelites, potentially influencing her understanding of and reaction to the covenantal requirements of the God of Israel.

Cultural Perspective

Zipporah’s actions, particularly the circumcision of her son and her declaration of Moses as a “bridegroom of blood,” may reflect a convergence of her Midianite heritage and her adoption into Moses’ covenantal life with Jehovah. The Midianites, while descendants of Abraham through Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2), were not part of the covenant God established with Abraham’s descendants through Isaac. This distinction might suggest that Zipporah’s familiarity with the practice and significance of circumcision, specifically as a covenant sign between Jehovah and His people, could have been limited or influenced by her own cultural practices and religious understanding.

Significance of Her Actions Within Her Own Understanding

Zipporah’s quick response to circumcise her son suggests she understood the gravity of the situation and the necessity of the act to appease Jehovah’s command, even if her understanding of its covenantal significance was not as deeply ingrained as it would have been for someone raised within the Israelite tradition. Her reference to Moses as a “bridegroom of blood” could be seen as an expression rooted in her personal and cultural interpretation of the event. This phrase may have encapsulated her shock, her distress over the necessity of bloodshed for covenantal adherence, and her recognition of the serious and binding nature of the covenantal obligations her family was under.

Moreover, her actions and words can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the power and authority of Jehovah, even from her outsider perspective. She stepped into a pivotal role to ensure her family’s compliance with Jehovah’s demands, thereby protecting her husband’s mission and her family’s well-being. This indicates a level of acceptance and submission to the God of her husband, Moses, and an intuitive understanding of the seriousness with which Jehovah regarded the covenant.

Estimating the Duration of Marriage

Determining the exact duration of Moses and Zipporah’s marriage at the time of the incident described in Exodus 4:24-26 involves some speculation, as the biblical text does not provide specific timelines for these events. However, by examining the sequence of events and contextual clues within the narrative, we can attempt to construct a plausible timeframe.

Moses fled to Midian after killing an Egyptian, which is when he met Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro (Reuel), the priest of Midian (Exodus 2:15-21). Moses then lived in Midian for a considerable period, during which he and Zipporah married and had at least two sons, Gershom and Eliezer (Exodus 2:22, 18:3-4). The incident in question occurred while Moses was returning to Egypt following his encounter with God at the burning bush, where he was commissioned to lead the Israelites out of slavery (Exodus 3:1-10, 4:20).

Considering that Moses spent 40 years in Midian from the time he fled Egypt until his return to lead the Israelites out (Acts 7:23, 7:30), it is reasonable to infer that Moses and Zipporah were married for a significant portion of this period, possibly several decades. This timeframe suggests that they had established a life together, raising their sons in Midian before the call to return to Egypt.

Zipporah’s Adoption of Israelite Ways

Regarding Zipporah’s adoption of Israelite ways and her status as a proselyte, the Bible does not explicitly detail her religious conversion or integration into Israelite customs. However, given her prolonged exposure to Moses’ faith and the monotheistic worship of Jehovah, it is plausible that Zipporah would have been familiar with Israelite beliefs and practices, even if she did not fully embrace them as her own initially.

The act of circumcision, a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 17:10-14), was a critical aspect of Israelite identity and religious practice. Moses’ neglect of this covenantal requirement for his son, and Zipporah’s subsequent intervention, suggests that she understood its importance, at least in the context of divine displeasure and the immediate threat to her family.

While the text does not explicitly describe Zipporah as a proselyte, her actions in Exodus 4:24-26 demonstrate a willingness to uphold the covenantal sign of circumcision, indicative of her respect for and acknowledgment of Moses’ God and His commandments. This incident may reflect her acceptance of key aspects of her husband’s faith, showcasing the complex interplay between personal belief, familial obligations, and divine commandments in the biblical narrative.

While the exact duration of Moses and Zipporah’s marriage at the time of the incident is not specified, they likely had been married for several decades. It is reasonable to consider that Zipporah, through her marriage to Moses, would have been exposed to and adopted some Israelite customs and beliefs, even if the extent of her conversion or integration into the Israelite religious community is not detailed in the biblical text.

Familial Connections and Religious Affinity

Zipporah’s father was Jethro (also referred to as Reuel in some biblical passages), the priest of Midian. The Midianites, whom Jethro was a part of, were indeed distant relatives of the Israelites, descending from Abraham through his wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2). This familial connection to Abraham might have facilitated a certain familiarity or openness towards the worship of Jehovah among the Midianites, including Zipporah.

The connection between the Midianites and the Israelites through Abraham could suggest a shared ancestral knowledge of God, even though the Midianites developed their own distinct cultural and religious identity over time. This shared ancestry might have made it somewhat easier for Zipporah to adopt her husband Moses’ religious views and accept Jehovah as her God, as there could have been an underlying acknowledgment of Jehovah among Abraham’s descendants outside of Isaac’s line.

Comparison with Rahab

The comparison with Rahab is insightful. Rahab, a Canaanite woman living in Jericho, acknowledged the power and sovereignty of Jehovah, the God of Israel, despite her outsider status and limited insight into Jewish beliefs (Joshua 2:9-11). Rahab’s faith and her actions to protect the Israelite spies were credited to her as righteousness, leading to her and her family’s salvation during the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6:25; Hebrews 11:31). Rahab’s integration into the Israelite community and her acknowledgment of Jehovah highlight the inclusivity of faith in Jehovah for those outside the Abrahamic lineage who recognize His sovereignty and align themselves with His people.

Zipporah’s Acceptance of Jehovah

In Zipporah’s case, while the biblical text does not explicitly detail her religious conversion or the depth of her faith in Jehovah, her actions in circumcising her son to avert divine judgment (Exodus 4:24-26) indicate a recognition of Jehovah’s authority and commandments. Her marriage to Moses and her familial connection to Abraham through Midian might have predisposed her to be more receptive to Moses’ faith. This, combined with her direct encounter with the consequences of not adhering to Jehovah’s covenant (the circumcision covenant), suggests an acceptance of Jehovah, at least insofar as recognizing His power and the seriousness with which Moses’ mission was to be undertaken.

Zipporah’s acceptance of Jehovah and her integration into Moses’ religious life can be seen as facilitated by her familial lineage as a descendant of Abraham through Midian and by her personal experiences that underscored the reality of Jehovah’s presence and commands. These factors likely contributed to her willingness to adopt her husband’s religious views and accept Jehovah as her God, similar to how Rahab recognized and embraced the sovereignty of Jehovah.

Conclusion

Considering Zipporah’s possible cultural perspective and her own understanding enriches our interpretation of this biblical episode. It highlights the complexities of cross-cultural interactions within the biblical narrative and the ways in which individuals outside the Abrahamic covenant responded to its demands. Zipporah’s actions demonstrate a personal and immediate response to divine requirements, showing that obedience to God’s commands transcends cultural and ethnic boundaries. Her response serves as a testament to the universal call to recognize and submit to God’s sovereignty, even from those who come to know Him from the margins.

In conclusion, the response is biblically sound, grounded in evangelical principles of biblical interpretation, and reflects a commitment to understanding Scripture within its covenantal context. It demonstrates a careful engagement with the biblical text, providing a coherent interpretation of a challenging passage while remaining faithful to conservative evangelical beliefs about the nature of Scripture and the importance of obedience to God’s commandments.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is the CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored more than 220 books and is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).