Exodus 4:24 and the Enigmatic Encounter at the Lodging Place: Preserving the Ambiguity of the Hebrew Pronoun

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

$5.00

Introduction: A Mysterious Moment in the Exodus Narrative

Exodus 4:24 stands as one of the most enigmatic and tension-filled verses in the entire Pentateuch. It interrupts the flow of the narrative with abrupt divine aggression: “And it happened on the way at the lodging place that Jehovah met him and sought to kill him.” The Hebrew is terse, direct, and unresolved. The verse does not specify who the object of divine judgment is, and this intentional ambiguity should be maintained in any faithful translation.

The interpretive and translational crux lies in the Hebrew pronoun hûʾ (“him”), which appears twice—once in the phrase “Jehovah met him” (wayyippāšēhû YHWH) and again in “sought to kill him” (wayəbaqqēš hămîtô). The lack of a specified antecedent raises legitimate exegetical questions: Is it Moses, his son (presumably Gershom), or another party altogether? The surrounding context does not offer a clear identification, and this narrative vagueness is deliberate. A literal, word-for-word translation must preserve this intentional uncertainty. To clarify the referent is to impose an interpretation not found in the original text and to rob the verse of its mysterious tension.

Hebrew Text and Translation

Hebrew Text:
וַיְהִי בַדֶּרֶךְ בַּמָּלוֹן וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ יְהוָה וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ

Transliteration:
wayəhî baderek bammālôn wayyippāšēhû YHWH wayəbaqqēš hămîtô

UASV Translation:
“And it happened on the way at the lodging place that Jehovah met him and sought to kill him.”

Linguistic Analysis of Key Verbs and Pronouns

wayyippāšēhû (וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁהוּ) – “and [Jehovah] met him”

The verb pāgaš (פָּגַשׁ) in the qal stem typically means “to meet” or “to encounter.” It can be used in both positive and hostile contexts. In Genesis 32:1–2, Jacob meets angels (pāgaš), while in 1 Samuel 10:5, Saul meets prophets. However, in Isaiah 64:5 [64:4 in Hebrew], the verb is used of Jehovah “meeting” those who joyfully do righteousness, a favorable encounter. But in Exodus 4:24, the immediate follow-up—“and sought to kill him”—clearly marks the encounter as hostile. Therefore, wayyippāšēhû should be translated literally as “met him,” conveying a sudden, threatening confrontation without softening the tone.

wayəbaqqēš hămîtô (וַיְבַקֵּשׁ הֲמִיתוֹ) – “and sought to kill him”

This clause uses the verb bāqaš (בָּקַשׁ, “to seek”) followed by hămîtô from the root mût (מוּת, “to die”), with the hiphil infinitive construct “to cause to die” (i.e., to kill). The form hămîtô means “to kill him,” again employing the third masculine singular suffix hûʾ (him). This grammatical structure is unambiguous in action but intentionally ambiguous in target.

The Pronoun hûʾ (הוּא) – The Crux of the Ambiguity

The repeated use of hûʾ (him) without a clear antecedent is central to the literary and theological structure of this passage. Nothing in the immediate or preceding verses explicitly resolves who is being referred to.

Previous Context (Exodus 4:21–23):
Jehovah is speaking to Moses about returning to Egypt, warning that Pharaoh’s heart will be hardened, and culminating in a declaration: “Let my son go… If you refuse… I will kill your son, your firstborn.” This mention of “your son” could logically prime the reader to expect more references to sons—perhaps Moses’ son or Pharaoh’s son. Yet Exodus 4:24 does not follow up with clarification.

Following Context (Exodus 4:25–26):
Zipporah immediately circumcises her son (likely Gershom, Exodus 2:22), then touches “his feet” with the foreskin and declares, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” The ambiguity continues here as well: Whose feet? Moses’? The son’s? The actions resolve the threat but do not clarify the identity of the one Jehovah sought to kill.

This persistent vagueness is a deliberate narrative device meant to create tension, prompt reader reflection, and emphasize the seriousness of neglecting the covenant sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:14). Removing this vagueness from the translation neutralizes the storytelling power of the verse and imports unwarranted interpretive decisions.

Translation Comparison and Evaluation

UASV: “And it happened on the way at the lodging place that Jehovah met him and sought to kill him.”
Evaluation: Faithful to the Hebrew, preserves ambiguity, maintains narrative tension and theological depth. Correct rendering.

ESV: “At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.”
Evaluation: “Put him to death” is a valid rendering of hămîtô. Most importantly, “him” is retained, preserving the ambiguous pronoun.

NASB (1995/2020): “Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.”
Evaluation: Keeps the third-person pronoun “him.” Literal and accurate. Retains narrative tension.

LEB: “And at a place of lodging on the way, Yahweh met him, and he sought to kill him.”
Evaluation: Fully maintains the ambiguity. “Yahweh” for Jehovah is a stylistic choice, but otherwise excellent.

CSB: “On the trip, at an overnight campsite, the LORD confronted him and intended to put him to death.”
Evaluation: “Confronted” is slightly interpretive but can carry a hostile connotation. Most critically, “him” is preserved. Acceptable.

NIV: “At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him.”
Evaluation: Incorrect. The pronoun hûʾ is replaced by a proper noun, “Moses,” removing the Hebrew’s intentional ambiguity and forcing an interpretive conclusion not present in the text.

NLT: “On the way to Egypt, at a place where Moses and his family had stopped for the night, the LORD confronted Moses and was about to kill him.”
Evaluation: Highly paraphrased. “Moses” replaces hûʾ, and “confronted” softens the threat level of the verb pāgaš. The verse is oversimplified and interpretive.

Why the Ambiguity Must Be Preserved

Literary and Narrative Purpose

The ambiguity of “him” contributes directly to the tension of the narrative. The sudden threat from Jehovah is shocking and forces both Zipporah and the reader into a moment of interpretive crisis. The narrative does not offer a clean resolution, and that is precisely its power. Resolving the ambiguity in translation undermines the rhetorical force of the original.

Theological Caution

Modern translators often attempt to identify “him” as Moses out of a perceived need for coherence. Some may assume that since Moses is the main subject of the preceding and following texts, he must be the referent. Others may believe that identifying Moses preserves a theological sense of fairness—Jehovah would punish Moses, not an innocent child. But the Hebrew makes no such specification, and forcing the referent is speculative and artificial.

Circumcision, as instituted in Genesis 17, was not a negotiable command. “Any uncircumcised male… shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:14). If Moses had failed to circumcise his son, the threat of divine judgment would logically extend to his household. The ambiguity may serve to reflect the entire family’s crisis under divine scrutiny.

Fidelity to the Hebrew

Literal translation must reflect what the Hebrew says—not what we think it means. The pronoun hûʾ is grammatically masculine singular, but its referent is unresolved. To translate it with a proper noun, such as “Moses,” is to substitute interpretation for translation, an error incompatible with sound translation philosophy.

Conclusion: Faithful Translation Requires Literal Ambiguity

Exodus 4:24 is not a narrative accident or a textual confusion. It is an intentional and highly crafted moment of theological and narrative suspense. The Hebrew presents Jehovah confronting someone—unidentified—and threatening death. The immediacy of divine judgment, combined with the sudden intervention of Zipporah, communicates the seriousness of covenantal faithfulness in visceral terms.

To preserve this in translation, the pronoun hûʾ must remain “him.” Any addition—such as “Moses”—is a gloss, not a translation. Literal translations such as the UASV, ESV, NASB, LEB, and CSB honor the integrity of the Hebrew. Paraphrased or interpretive versions like the NIV and NLT, however, short-circuit the ambiguity and strip the text of its narrative force.

Faithful translation must present the text as it is, letting readers wrestle with its complexities rather than resolving them prematurely. The ambiguity in Exodus 4:24 is a divine mystery—not to be erased but to be preserved and pondered.

You May Also Enjoy

Genesis 4:7 and the Vivid Animalistic Imagery of rōbēṣ: A Detailed Textual and Translational Analysis

About the Author

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