'On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met him [Moses] and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it, and said, "Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then she said, "A bridegroom of blood by circumcision."' (Exodus 4:24-26. NRSV)
So, God tried to kill Moses but didn't manage? If at first you don't succeed …
Both the Septuagint, which uses the verb zhte,w, and the Hebrew, which uses the verb vqb, are simply translated as 'sought'. I.e. God 'sought' to kill him. Probably the NIV does a good job with the verse translating it as follows: 'At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him'. Of course, this rendering also removes one of the theological problems with its more dynamic and less literal approach.
I love bible verses like this!
9 comments:
I'm not entirely convinced. I can't comment on the Hebrew. But often the early parts of the bible reflect the fact that they were written by people who had much 'lower' views of god(s) than what we have today...
ie to them god(s) were powerful human-like beings who was not remotely omniscient nor omnipotent and who could feel threatened by or be envious of humans.
Regularly throughout those early narratives, god(s) are conveyed in anthropomorphic terms because the writers actually believed the god(s) were like that.
Thus, I would say that chances are, the writer of this passage probably did mean "Yahweh tried to kill Moses (but did not succeed)". A story of similar characteristics would be the one where Yahweh is losing a wrestling match with Jacob and is forced to hit him below-the-belt to win.
Hi Chris,
You'll also love this verse...
Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.
Judges 1:19 (New American Standard Bible)
I reckon Paul would counter by saying: "Tell me who tested Job and I'll tell you who tested David"
Just for fun: add to the argument that some persons see "feet" used euphemistically for other parts of the male anatomy and the verse gets even crazier!
YHWH was about to kill him but Zipporah cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' genitalia with it and became a bride of blood, so he didn't.
Seems pretty straight forward!
{{Just for fun: add to the argument that some persons see "feet" used euphemistically for other parts of the male anatomy and the verse gets even crazier!}}
I'm inclined to go with that reading, too, btw. (This may even be the archetypal verse behind that euphemism!) But then, I'm a Christian chivalrist, so it's easy for me to imagine God getting torqued that Moses wasn't following through with an admittedly tough condition for a guy to meet, and sending a disease on Moses (that might potentially kill him) as a reminder, and Zipp (who as the woman and wife is the person who stands most directly to gain from Moses' circumcision, btw) getting tough about it and doing the first two circumcisions in the family herself (which the wives of those two sons would benefit from someday themselves) as a way of telling Moses to gut up and fulfill his promises.
Not such a banner day for Moses. {g} But I admire the narrative courage of showing that prophets of God can be intransigent sometimes, too. (The Muslims would have cleaned it up substantially to show Moses being a perfect servant of God.)
Incidentally, I take the "trying to kill" in this case to be a progressive incident marker: God did something in His anger against Moses that would eventually lead to Moses' death if matters weren't rectified. I expect it was a particular kind of infection. {wry g}
(That being said, I agree with Andrew, too, generally speaking; I don't have any theological problems with progressive revelation working in such a fashion.)
JRP
Andrew,
"Regularly throughout those early narratives, god(s) are conveyed in anthropomorphic terms"
I hear you - good point. I must admit, I didn't think of that.
Hi Edward, that is hilarious! I did look it up in Hebrew and Greek, but it seems the humour may only work "on our end".
Boxthejack,
Totally - that one is a zinger. Though there are some unsually interesting explanations of tis one which deal with God's sovereignty over satan.
And what would Paul say? Matthew may be right, but I suspect that Paul would say:
"Read Wright"
Scott, superb. Now I dare you to give this as a baptism verse to some kid...
Nice to know an infinite Being inspired and preserved this wise tale concerning Moses to remind us that exegetes are still confused and at odds trying to explain what the heck that infinite Being is trying to tell us in this tale.
And what about the "soothing aroma" [literal Hebrew?] Yahweh claims to smell after certain animals are barbecued in his honor?
Of course many other ancient gods were likewise addicted to barbecue in their honor as well.
Nice to know that an infinite Being might do something in history that we non-omniscient exegetes afterward might not all agree about the meaning of (or even be entirely sure ourselves about the meaning.)
That goes with the territory as much as the cultural coloring does. Which most of the people posting here are going to know already; which is why we don't consider it to be a serious theological problem. Which is why we can seriously discuss verses like this (even with some amused fondness for the source, as in this case) instead of getting all panicky.
JRP
"God did something in His anger against Moses that would eventually lead to Moses' death if matters weren't rectified." JRP
Well said, JRP. God 'chastened' His son Moses to cause him to see the seriousness of his refusal to do as He had commanded in this respect. 'For whom the Lord loves He chastens ...'(Heb12:6).
'...they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.' Judges 1:19, Ed
They focused upon this fact and lacked faith - even though the Lord was with them.
"soothing aroma"
It's a metaphor, Ed.
Post a Comment