What the %&@#$??

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Exodus 4:24-26. Please. Somebody explain what the hell this story is doing in the Bible.

 

[*Paul*]

Genesis 4:24-26. Please. Somebody explain what the hell this story is doing in the Bible.

Matthew Henry:
24-31 God met Moses in anger. The Lord threatened him with death or sent sickness upon him, as the punishment of his having neglected to circumcise his son. When God discovers to us what is amiss in our lives, we must give all diligence to amend it speedily. This is the voice of every rod; it calls us to return to Him that smites us. God sent Aaron to meet Moses. The more they saw of God's bringing them together, the more pleasant their interview was. The elders of Israel met them in faith, and were ready to obey them. It often happens, that less difficulty is found than was expected, in such undertakings as are according to the will of God, and for his glory. Let us but arise and try at our proper work, the Lord will be with us and prosper us. If Israel welcomed the tidings of their deliverance, and worshipped the Lord, how should we welcome the glad tidings of redemption, embrace it in faith, and adore the Redeemer!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Genesis [sic!] 4:24-26. Please. Somebody explain what the hell this story is doing in the Bible.

... or, for that matter, how it managed to migrate from Exodus to 'Genesis'!

The short answer to your question is that nobody knows, but it is suspected to be a fragmentary remnant of an earlier strata of narrative as is suggested by the fact that it is a woman who performs the circumcision.

It's interesting, for example, that the plural form of the word blood (damim) is used. According to Friedman, this form is typically used to mean "bloodguilt". He also suggests that the word for "bridegroom" also means "circumcision" in Arabic.

Most interesting, I think, is Friedman's suggestion that 4:24, typically rendered something like ...

Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death.​

could also be translated as ...

And he [Moses] was on the way, at a lodging place, and YHWH met him, and he [Moses] asked [YHWH] to kill him.​

Friedman continues ...

I am raising the possibility (reflected in my translation: "he asked to kill him") that it means that Moses is asking God to take his life (rather than send him to Egypt). This is consistent with another time in Moses' life when he will ask God to kill him (Num 11:15, where he says emphatically: "Kill me!"). And it fits with a model of prophets who ask God to take their lives - Elijah (1 Kings 19:4) and Jonah (4:4) - or say that they prefer death to being prophets - Jeremiah (20:14-18).​

Elsewhere, Robert Alter writes:

What seems more plausible [than the traditional Jewish commentart] is that Zipporah's act reflects an older rationale for circumcision among the West Semitic peoples than the covenental one enumerated in Genesis 17. Here circumcision serves as an apotropaic device, to ward off the hostility of a dangerous deity ... a kind of symbolic synecdoche of human sacrifice.​

All of this is, to be sure, speculative, but it seems reasonable to see in this fragment, as too the story of the binding of Isaac (the Akedah), evidence of lore transitioning society away from the child sacrifice practiced in Canaan.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

... or, for that matter, how it managed to migrate from Exodus to 'Genesis'!

Oh crap. Can a mod who can deal with URLs please fix that? (in the OP)

The short answer to your question is that nobody knows, but it is suspected to be a fragmentary remnant of an earlier strata of narrative as is suggested by the fact that it is a woman who performs the circumcision.

It's interesting, for example, that the plural form of the word blood (damim) is used. According to Friedman, this form is typically used to mean "bloodguilt". He also suggests that the word for "bridegroom" also means "circumcision" in Arabic.

Most interesting, I think, is Friedman's suggestion that 4:24, typically rendered something like ...

Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death.​

could also be translated as ...

And he [Moses] was on the way, at a lodging place, and YHWH met him, and he [Moses] asked [YHWH] to kill him.​

Friedman continues ...

I am raising the possibility (reflected in my translation: "he asked to kill him") that it means that Moses is asking God to take his life (rather than send him to Egypt). This is consistent with another time in Moses' life when he will ask God to kill him (Num 11:15, where he says emphatically: "Kill me!"). And it fits with a model of prophets who ask God to take their lives - Elijah (1 Kings 19:4) and Jonah (4:4) - or say that they prefer death to being prophets - Jeremiah (20:14-18).​

Elsewhere, Robert Alter writes:

What seems more plausible [than the traditional Jewish commentart] is that Zipporah's act reflects an older rationale for circumcision among the West Semitic peoples than the covenental one enumerated in Genesis 17. Here circumcision serves as an apotropaic device, to ward off the hostility of a dangerous deity ... a kind of symbolic synecdoche of human sacrifice.​

All of this is, to be sure, speculative, but it seems reasonable to see in this fragment, as too the story of the binding of Isaac (the Akedah), evidence of lore transitioning society away from the child sacrifice practiced in Canaan.

OK, so maybe the whole "God tried to kill Moses" is a bad translation. I think I could buy that, but of course that would open up a different can of worms.

But what's up with Zipporah circumcising her own son?

Matthew Henry:
24-31 God met Moses in anger. The Lord threatened him with death or sent sickness upon him, as the punishment of his having neglected to circumcise his son. When God discovers to us what is amiss in our lives, we must give all diligence to amend it speedily. This is the voice of every rod; it calls us to return to Him that smites us. God sent Aaron to meet Moses. The more they saw of God's bringing them together, the more pleasant their interview was. The elders of Israel met them in faith, and were ready to obey them. It often happens, that less difficulty is found than was expected, in such undertakings as are according to the will of God, and for his glory. Let us but arise and try at our proper work, the Lord will be with us and prosper us. If Israel welcomed the tidings of their deliverance, and worshipped the Lord, how should we welcome the glad tidings of redemption, embrace it in faith, and adore the Redeemer!

That doesn't explain why Zipporah takes a knife to her son's penis.

 

[Bathsheba]

All of this is, to be sure, speculative

But such informed speculation I'm sure.

 

[*Paul*]

That doesn't explain why Zipporah takes a knife to her son's penis.

I think it does, as Matthew Henry says:

Matthew Henry:
24-31 God met Moses in anger. The Lord threatened him with death or sent sickness upon him, as the punishment of his having neglected to circumcise his son.

With that in mind Zipporah circumcises her son, to save the life of Moses - it is better to obey late than to obey never, that is the moral of one of Jesus' parables too:


Matthew 21:28-31 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is a lot to do with keeping your word....

 

[*Paul*]

This is a lot to do with keeping your word....

If you are reffering to the parable (it's hard to tell without any quote being used), neither of them kept their word but one is said to have done the will of the Father. The first said to his father that he would not go - but later went, the second said he would go but never went.
The first representing the publicans and harlots who were rebels but later repented and believed, the second representing the pharisees, scribes etc who paid God lipservice but never acted out the will of God.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Off all the things in the world, we pick thsi subject.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I think it does, as Matthew Henry says:

Matthew Henry:
24-31 God met Moses in anger. The Lord threatened him with death or sent sickness upon him, as the punishment of his having neglected to circumcise his son.

With that in mind Zipporah circumcises her son, to save the life of Moses - it is better to obey late than to obey never, that is the moral of one of Jesus' parables too:


Matthew 21:28-31 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

So failure to circumcise is a capital crime.

Off all the things in the world, we pick this subject.

Isn't the Bible fun?

 

[Darkness]

It is simply tribal nonsense. I bet you if we would apply all the rules Christians and Judaists apply to Yahweh we could make Zeus appear to be an omnipotent cerebral God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn't the Bible fun?

Deeply.