by Elsewhere 13 Replies latest jw friends
24 Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him [Moses] and ( AB ) sought to put him to death.
25 Then Zipporah took ( AC ) a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."
26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood"--because of the circumcision.
who knows.
i try not to read the old testament anymore.. makes me wonder if thats a god worthy of worship some days. (yes i know awful thing to say, but i'm currently dealing with fanatic jw daughter shunning me and not taking my calls , hard not to be bitter!)
Then Zipporah took ( AC ) a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet,
*shudders*
wasn't god going to kill him, because the child wasn't circumsied?
I dunno
Dams
Sounds like she "nipped the problem in the bud".
When I was 16 years old, I asked the same question of our Presiding Overseer™. He told me what a great question it was, and it would be good to practice my research skills and find out the answer for myself. (Which means, when translated, "Damned if I know. I'm too busy to answer all these questions about the Bible, I've got Judicial Committees™ to run and people to DF. Look it up yourself and let me know.")
Exodus 4
24 Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him [Moses] and ( AB ) sought to put him to death.
25 Then Zipporah took ( AC ) a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."
26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood"--because of the circumcision.
There was a QFR on that scripture that basically said that the "him" in the scripture was not clear as to whom Jehovah intended to kill (I guess he's not picky). The QFR suggested that "him" may have referred to Moses' son, because circumcising the son resulted in Jehovah's changing his mind about killing anyone (ie, he got another foreskin trophy and was happy again). Looking at the context, this is what vs 23 says: 23 "So I said to you, ' ( Z ) Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you have refused to let him go Behold, ( AA ) I will kill your son, your firstborn."'"
The supposed reason for Jehovah's seeking to put Moses/his son/ (somebody?/anybody?) to death was because of Moses' failure to keep the Abrahamic Covenant of circumcision. It meant that the child was not properly dedicated to Jehovah, so somebody had to die (or get the end of their penis whacked off with a flint) to set things straight.
The supposed reason for Jehovah's seeking to put Moses/his son/ (somebody?/anybody?) to death was because of Moses' failure to keep the Abrahamic Covenant of circumcision. It meant that the child was not properly dedicated to Jehovah, so somebody had to die (or get the end of their penis whacked off with a flint) to set things straight.
I am awaiting my gold star.
Dams
because he sucks, thats why.
This is evidence of a literary seam in the text, that two originally separate stories have been combined with additional explanatory material omitted by the redactor. The passage is baffling because Yahweh inexplicably seeks to kill Moses in v. 24 even tho he had just said in v. 19 that he must go to Egypt "for all those who wanted to kill you are dead", and there is no explanation why Yahweh had extensively prepped Moses for a mission to Egypt (ch. 3-4) and then suddenly tried to kill him. The purpose of the pericope is etiological, to explain where the expression "bridegroom of blood" came from (v. 26). In the Elohist source, Moses' father-in-law is called "Jethro" (cf. 3:1, 4:18, ch. 18), whereas his name in the Yahwist source is "Reuel" (2:18). The pericope in 4:24-26 is likely from the Yahwist source, because of its reference to Zipporah and Moses' son, who is named in the Yahwist pericope in 2:18-22 as "Gershom". The circumcision pericope was likely dislocated from a different context (e.g. connected with the Zipporah-Gershom traditions in ch. 2) and inserted in its present context by the redactor because of the mention of Moses' son in the Elohist pericope of 4:18-23. There is a lack of any mention up to this point of a failure of Moses to circumcise his son, which would have probably been supplied by the original source of the pericope.
The passage was baffling to ancient interpreters as well, which is why some sought to explain why Moses had failed to circumcise his son (cf. Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, Fr. Targum (V) Exodus 5:25, Ephraem, Commentary on Exodus 2:8), and why some tried to construe "Yahweh" in this text as a wicked angel (cf. "Prince Mastema" in Jubilees 48:2-4) or the "Destroyer" who later killed Egypt's firstborn (cf. Targum Neophyti 4:25, Fragment Targum (P) Exodus 4:26). The latter interpretation is quite interesting, for Moses and his son would be saved by blood (= "bridegroom of blood") from the angelic Destroyer just as the firstborn in Egypt would be saved by lamb's blood (cf. the immediately preceding verses v. 22-23, mentioning the killing of the unsaved firstborn in Egypt).
