11-21-2023, 04:09 AM
Hi COmentator,
I read through the links you provided. They were very interesting and put everything in perspective. Based on what I read, I would explain the passage of Exodus 4:24-26 to mean that Moses was neglecting to do what, by now, he knew he should have done: circumcise his son. God throughout the Torah, from the initial covenant with Abraham to this story in Exodus, seems pretty intent on marking out a distinction between his worshippers (the Israelites) and all other tribes/nations/peoples, and for those who want to partake of the covenant must, as a demonstration of their commitment, be circumcised and circumcise their sons (indeed, anyone in their household, even slaves). By the time Moses and his family lodged at the inn, he should have known better. So God decided to pay him a visit in order to--is it fair to say?--not so much kill him but put to him an ultimatum: it's now or never--circumcise your son now as a pledge of devotion to the Israelite cause or be killed--and ironically Zipporah was the one to step up to the plate and do the dirty deed--thus declaring Moses to be a "bridegroom of blood" to her (i.e. a husband who, in virtue of his commitment to the Israelite cause, must stand against and indeed (eventually) slaughter all contending tribes/nations/people, including the Midians, Zipporah's family and people).
So circumcision is a symbol of sacrifice--it signifies that one is willing to sacrifice everything (or at least a great deal) for the Israelite cause--the least of which, for boys, is their foreskin, but not least in the sense of its symbolic significance--it must be something hard to do--indeed, almost unbearable, like drawing blood--which is why the blood of circumcision is center stage in this symbolism, and why Zipporah's sacrifice of her family and people is summed up in her labelling Moses a "bridegroom of blood", the slaughterer of her people.
Would you say this is a fair interpretation? And would you agree that God set out, not so much to kill Moses, but to put to him an ultimatum, the outcome of which might warrant God killing him?
Yet, something else occurs to me: Is it fair to say that Moses should have known better? That he should have known to circumcise his son at this point in the story? Or was Moses purposefully putting it off for the sake of Zipporah and her family? I mean, I'm sure he didn't like the idea of being pitted against the Midians, and in fact probably loved Zipporah enough to not want to put her through that. Is that a possibility?
I read through the links you provided. They were very interesting and put everything in perspective. Based on what I read, I would explain the passage of Exodus 4:24-26 to mean that Moses was neglecting to do what, by now, he knew he should have done: circumcise his son. God throughout the Torah, from the initial covenant with Abraham to this story in Exodus, seems pretty intent on marking out a distinction between his worshippers (the Israelites) and all other tribes/nations/peoples, and for those who want to partake of the covenant must, as a demonstration of their commitment, be circumcised and circumcise their sons (indeed, anyone in their household, even slaves). By the time Moses and his family lodged at the inn, he should have known better. So God decided to pay him a visit in order to--is it fair to say?--not so much kill him but put to him an ultimatum: it's now or never--circumcise your son now as a pledge of devotion to the Israelite cause or be killed--and ironically Zipporah was the one to step up to the plate and do the dirty deed--thus declaring Moses to be a "bridegroom of blood" to her (i.e. a husband who, in virtue of his commitment to the Israelite cause, must stand against and indeed (eventually) slaughter all contending tribes/nations/people, including the Midians, Zipporah's family and people).
So circumcision is a symbol of sacrifice--it signifies that one is willing to sacrifice everything (or at least a great deal) for the Israelite cause--the least of which, for boys, is their foreskin, but not least in the sense of its symbolic significance--it must be something hard to do--indeed, almost unbearable, like drawing blood--which is why the blood of circumcision is center stage in this symbolism, and why Zipporah's sacrifice of her family and people is summed up in her labelling Moses a "bridegroom of blood", the slaughterer of her people.
Would you say this is a fair interpretation? And would you agree that God set out, not so much to kill Moses, but to put to him an ultimatum, the outcome of which might warrant God killing him?
Yet, something else occurs to me: Is it fair to say that Moses should have known better? That he should have known to circumcise his son at this point in the story? Or was Moses purposefully putting it off for the sake of Zipporah and her family? I mean, I'm sure he didn't like the idea of being pitted against the Midians, and in fact probably loved Zipporah enough to not want to put her through that. Is that a possibility?