Explain Exodus 4:21-4:24 To Me

[CHRISTINE77]

What is this passage supposed to be saying?

4:21The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

24At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

Why was God going to kill Moses? Why did Zipporah perform circumcision on her child? What is a “bridegroom of blood”?

 

[cthulhubryan]

What is this passage supposed to be saying?

4:21The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

24At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

Why was God going to kill Moses? Why did Zipporah perform circumcision on her child? What is a “bridegroom of blood”?

The bridegroom of blood refers to circumcision.
It is not clear that the correct translation is that the Lord was going to kill Moses for it may have meant Moses’ son Eliezer.
Moses should have completed the rites as were his duty under the Law but failed to do so. Therefore when Zipporah performs the circumcision and throws the foreskin at Moses’ feet she completes his duty.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The bridegroom of blood refers to circumcision.
It is not clear that the correct translation is that the Lord was going to kill Moses for it may have meant Moses’ son Eliezer.
Moses should have completed the rites as were his duty under the Law but failed to do so. Therefore when Zipporah performs the circumcision and throws the foreskin at Moses’ feet she completes his duty.

There certainly was a lot of killing or almost killing of first-born sons in the Old Testament. I guess it was the ultimate sacrifice that a parent could possibly do. I imagine it relates to God’s ultimate sacrifice of his son Jesus for the salvation of the world.

The Old Testament is kind of weird but I like it. A lot of it is definitely hinting at what will come and be fulfilled in the New Testament.

 

[tobinatorstark]

What is this passage supposed to be saying?

4:21The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’”

24At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

Why was God going to kill Moses? Why did Zipporah perform circumcision on her child? What is a “bridegroom of blood”?

Here is the Haydock Bible Commentary. This goes along the same lines as post #2

Ver. 21. I shall harden, &c. Not by being the efficient cause of his sin; but by withdrawing from him, for his just punishment, the dew of grace, that might have softened his heart; and so suffering him to grow harder and harder. (Challoner) — Non impertiendo misericordiam. (St. Augustine, ep. 194, ad Sixt.) Thus God permitted the false miracles of the magicians, and did not suffer the scourges to continue long, so that the tyrant soon relapsed and forgot his promises. (Origen, Philos. xx; Theod. in Rom. ix. 16.) (Calmet)

Ver. 22. First-born, heir to my promises, and the object of my complacency.

Ver. 23. Thy son. This was the tenth and last scourge, which forced the king to relent. (Menochius)

Ver. 24. The Lord met him, and would have killed him. This was an angel representing the Lord, who treated Moses in this manner, for having neglected the circumcision of his younger son: which his wife understanding, circumcised her child upon the spot, upon which the angel let Moses go. (Challoner) — Both his children were born about this time. But Eliezer, the younger, had not been circumcised; and therefore remained under the power of the destroying angel. (Origen, contra Cels. v.) Others think the angel was going to kill Moses. (Calmet)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here is the Haydock Bible Commentary. This goes along the same lines as post #2

Ver. 21. I shall harden, &c. Not by being the efficient cause of his sin; but by withdrawing from him, for his just punishment, the dew of grace, that might have softened his heart; and so suffering him to grow harder and harder. (Challoner) — Non impertiendo misericordiam. (St. Augustine, ep. 194, ad Sixt.) Thus God permitted the false miracles of the magicians, and did not suffer the scourges to continue long, so that the tyrant soon relapsed and forgot his promises. (Origen, Philos. xx; Theod. in Rom. ix. 16.) (Calmet)

Ver. 22. First-born, heir to my promises, and the object of my complacency.

Ver. 23. Thy son. This was the tenth and last scourge, which forced the king to relent. (Menochius)

Ver. 24. The Lord met him, and would have killed him. This was an angel representing the Lord, who treated Moses in this manner, for having neglected the circumcision of his younger son: which his wife understanding, circumcised her child upon the spot, upon which the angel let Moses go. (Challoner) — Both his children were born about this time. But Eliezer, the younger, had not been circumcised; and therefore remained under the power of the destroying angel. (Origen, contra Cels. v.) Others think the angel was going to kill Moses. (Calmet)

Hmmm. Very interesting. There’s really no lead up to God suddenly wanting to kill Moses (or his firstborn). The only thing I can think of is that earlier, Moses was arguing with God, saying he couldn’t speak well, or didn’t want to go to Egypt and rescue the Israelites. The transitions don’t make much sense. I know that God works in mysterious ways, but this is a little over the top!

 

[Nita]

Hmmm. Very interesting. There’s really no lead up to God suddenly wanting to kill Moses (or his firstborn). The only thing I can think of is that earlier, Moses was arguing with God, saying he couldn’t speak well, or didn’t want to go to Egypt and rescue the Israelites. The transitions don’t make much sense. I know that God works in mysterious ways, but this is a little over the top!

At this point in Israelite covenant history there was only one law God had imposed on them - and that was the law of circumcision; Gen 17:9-14. (The Ten Commandments and all the other Mosaic laws were still in the future.)

Moses had been granted special graces - eg. the burning bush; personal communications from God. If he had been lax before, one would have thought that after these special occurances he would have been zealous in fulfilling the one request God had made. I think the seriousness of what God threatened was a way of showing the seriousness with which God views obedience to His commands.

Scripture doesn’t say why Moses failed to circumcise his son. One hypothesis I’ve seen is that it was because Zipporah may have opposed it. If so, it is rather fitting that, in the end, it was she who was the one to perform the rite.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

At this point in Israelite covenant history there was only one law God had imposed on them - and that was the law of circumcision; Gen 17:9-14. (The Ten Commandments and all the other Mosaic laws were still in the future.)

Moses had been granted special graces - eg. the burning bush; personal communications from God. If he had been lax before, one would have thought that after these special occurances he would have been zealous in fulfilling the one request God had made. I think the seriousness of what God threatened was a way of showing the seriousness with which God views obedience to His commands.

Scripture doesn’t say why Moses failed to circumcise his son. One hypothesis I’ve seen is that it was because Zipporah may have opposed it. If so, it is rather fitting that, in the end, it was she who was the one to perform the rite.

I’ve read that too, but where in the Old Testament does it say so? Where is this extra information coming from?

 

[Nita]

I’ve read that too, but where in the Old Testament does it say so? Where is this extra information coming from?

Do you mean about Zipporah opposing circumcision? That isn’t in Scripture. I have no idea where it originated. It is no doubt something someone hypothecized could have been the reason – especially since Zipporah was a Midian and not an Israelite (Ex 2:15-22).

Re the special graces Moses received, those are recorded in Scripture. See Exodus, chapter 3 and subsequent chapters.

Nita

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Do you mean about Zipporah opposing circumcision? That isn’t in Scripture. I have no idea where it originated. It is no doubt something someone hypothecized could have been the reason – especially since Zipporah was a Midian and not an Israelite (Ex 2:15-22).

Re the special graces Moses received, those are recorded in Scripture. See Exodus, chapter 3 and subsequent chapters.

Nita

Yes I did mean about Zipporah.