Therefore, there is an implicit disobedience being exposed in this story. And that begins to explain the seeming blindside God gives Moses as he travels from Midian to Egypt to challenge Pharaoh.
What if this is no blind side at all? What if this is the culmination of a long standing tension between Moses and God and perhaps also between Moses and his in-laws? What if Moses has not circumcised his sons, to please his in-laws ahead of pleasing God? A God whose character and laws he is going to represent to the world in very short order!
Now, the weird thing is, Zipporah knows God is about to take his life for this offense. And she also seems to know immediately what will turn away the curse. We should ask, how does she know Moses life is in danger? And how does she know what to do about it? I would suggest, all this implies that God had not made a verbal confrontation with Moses as he had at the burning bush , but that perhaps Moses had become deathly ill on the journey. Instead, a circumstance like a deathly illness would clearly be interpreted by them both as the hand of God and not some random event — especially since they were on such a great mission directly from God.
So perhaps Zipporah might have asked Moses why God was seemingly against them. To read that God sought to kill Moses, seems like God would off him for what we think of as a minor misdemeanor, meanwhile jeopardizing the much more important mission of liberating the Israelites without a care for either. There is no need to ask these difficult questions. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. At that time she said "bridegroom of blood," referring to circumcision.
Exodus The underlined words above are words that were supplied by the NIV translators. The original Hebrew only has pronouns such as "he" and "him" in those places. These supplied names seem to make it easier for the reader to follow the narrative. But the problem is that these supplied names are incorrect.
When we read the passage in the King James Bible we get the correct understanding of the passage. Once we get the correct understanding of the passage, the hard questions that have plagued theologians for years will vanish. Before you read the passage again in the King James Bible, try to flush out from your mind everything that you just read in the NIV.
Approach the text as if you are reading it for the first time. Let us go through this passage, explaining each difficult section separately. In verse 23, God makes it clear that he will slay Pharaoh's firstborn son if Pharaoh refuses to let go of Israel. Now, in verse 24, the underlined "him," refers not to Moses but to Pharaoh's firstborn son. This interpretation makes sense grammatically because the nearest antecedent is "firstborn" in verse This interpretation also makes sense narratologically because the previous verse speaks of God promising to kill Pharaoh's firstborn son.
Thus verse 24 belongs together in the same episode as that of verse Many translations even some KJV editions begin a new section after verse 23 often with a new section heading , obscuring the fact that "him" in verse 24 refers to Pharaoh's firstborn son mentioned in verse Having a break between verse 23 and 24 is not necessarily wrong because there seems to be a chronological break between the two verses e.
Verse 24 says that the LORD met Pharaoh's firstborn son in an inn and determined "sought" to kill him. God had the foreknowledge of Pharaoh's refusal to let Israel go, so God was already prepared to seek the death of the firstborn son.
This sentence also serves to foreshadow the future narrative. Zipporah circumcised her son as Moses held him still. A new section begins from verse The narrative begins with a picture of Zipporah circumcising her son. The immediate question is, "Why is Moses not performing the circumcision? Imagine the situation. Here is a grown boy who had to be circumcised. Circumcision in Israel was performed only by religious duty—and only by men. Moses had neglected the ritual, and now he, Zipporah, and little Gershom were already on the road back to Egypt.
A circumcised Moses would be unable to travel, so Zipporah performed the ritual on Gershom and, symbolically, on Moses. Her deed was unprecedented, but necessary. Zipporah acted in faith, and God relented. This odd episode also presents us with several lessons.
We must not neglect to do what God requires. Originally published in print, Vol. Bible Study Magazine is the only award-winning magazine devoted to making your Bible Study more effective, organized, and relevant.
0コメント