SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Exodus 4:24???

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
strawrifle
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 139
uk

 Exodus 4:24???

Hi ive been doing a daily Bible study,and recently read this verse

24At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death

this was due to his child not being circumcised..I find it a odd verse coming so close after God had spoken to him ,and sent him on his mission...it doesn't seem to add up


aj


_________________
andy

 2007/3/29 10:03Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re: Exodus 4:23 ???

I have wondered about that as well. It reminds me of the story of Balaam in Numbers 22

"19Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the LORD will say unto me more. 20And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. 22And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him.

"31Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. 32And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: 33And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. 34And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again. 35And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak."

Didn't God tell Balaam to go and then get mad at Balaam for going? Also, why did the Angel speak against Balaam for hitting his donkey when Balaam never saw the angel because his eyes were not opened?

Maybe someone here can clear up both of these instances.

 2007/3/29 11:53Profile
strawrifle
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 139
uk

 Re:

Oh my Jay urs is even more perplexing! :-?


_________________
andy

 2007/3/29 12:10Profile
death2self
Member



Joined: 2006/9/28
Posts: 192
Washington DC area

 Re:

Here's what Adam Clarke said on this verse, which you may find helpful... It certainly is a bit obscure, at least to me. I remember something written in the Septuagint that was a bit clearer than the English for some reason I can't remember the details.

The account in this and the following verse is very obscure. Some suppose that the 23d verse is not a part of the message to Pharaoh, but was spoken by the Lord to Moses; and that the whole may be thus paraphrased: "And I have said unto thee, (Moses,) Send forth jl shallach, my son, (Gershom, by circumcising him,) that he may serve me, (which he cannot do till entered into the covenant by circumcision,) but thou hast refused to send him forth; behold, (therefore,) I will slay thy son, thy first-born. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, (when he was on his journey to Egypt,) that Jehovah met him, and sought (threatened) to kill him (Gershom.) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut away the foreskin of her son, and caused it to touch his feet, (Jehovah's, who probably appeared in a bodily shape; the Septuagint call him the Angel of the Lord,) and said unto him, A spouse by blood art thou unto me. Then he (Jehovah) ceased from him (Gershom.) Then she said, A spouse by blood art thou unto me, because of this circumcision." That is, I who am an alien have entered as fully into covenant with thee by doing this act, as my son has on whom this act has been performed.

The meaning of the whole passage seems to be this:-The son of Moses, Gershom or Eliezer, (for it does not appear which,) had not been circumcised, though it would seem that God had ordered the father to do it; but as he had neglected this, therefore Jehovah was about to have slain the child, because not in covenant with him by circumcision, and thus he intended to have punished the disobedience of the father by the natural death of his son. Zipporah, getting acquainted with the nature of the case and the danger to which her first-born was exposed, took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son. By this act the displeasure of the Lord was turned aside, and Zipporah considered herself as now allied to God because of this circumcision. According to the law, (Gen. xvii. 14,) the uncircumcised child was to be cut off from his people, so that there should be no inheritance for that branch of the family in Israel. Moses therefore, for neglecting to circumcise the child, exposed him to this cutting off, and it was but barely prevented by the prompt obedience of Zipporah. As circumcision was the seal of that justification by faith which comes through Christ, Moses by neglecting it gave a very bad example, and God was about to proceed against him with that severity which the law required.

The sharp stone mentioned ver. 25 was probably a knife made of flint, for such were anciently used, even where knives of metal might be had, for every kind of operation about the human body, such as embowelling for the purpose of embalming, circumcision, &c. Ancient authors are full of proofs of these facts. See the note on "Gen. l. 2".

It is probable that Zipporah, being alarmed by this circumstance, and fearing worse evils, took the resolution to return to her father's house with her two sons. See chap. xviii. 1, &c.


_________________
Ed Pugh

 2007/3/29 12:13Profile
Goldminer
Member



Joined: 2006/11/7
Posts: 1178
Alabama

 Re: Numbers 22

I believe the first question and answer about Zipporah is right on, however the one brought up about Baalim is very clear as well. When he sought God what to do after the men approached him to curse Israel, God said don't go:

[color=0000CC]Num 22:12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they [are] blessed. [/color]

However because he was moved by gain he kept intreating God until God told him to go, however he was to suffer the consequences of his disobedience.

It reminds me of the children of Israel in the wilderness who were unsatified with manna and wanted flesh, God finally gave them what they wanted and then they suffered the consequences of thier murmuring and grumbling.

Also when the people sought Samuel for a king they were finally granted one, however that didn't go well for them either.

In today's language, some people demand of God a spouse before God's time and finally get one only to find out they are living with the devil.

If we have idols of money or marriage or food in our hearts many times God will allow us to have what we demand, and then we will learn the hard way.


_________________
KLC

 2007/3/29 12:40Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

This one of those times when if you read the story very carefully you may find more clues. For example; “And Moses took his wife and his [b]son[u]s[/u][/b], and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.” (Ex 4:20 KJVS)…so there is no doubt that there were 3 men in this party, Moses, Gershom (Ex 2:21-22) and another son. We deduce this from the fact that the scripture refers to ‘sons’ ie at least two.

However later in the account we read…“Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her [b]son[/b], and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.” (Ex 4:25 KJVS)…which implies that of the 3 males present only one was circumcised by Zipporah at this time. (still with me?)

So what possible scenario can we derive from this? Here is my suggestion. Moses would have been circumcised in Egypt as a child. What of Gershom? Jethro, Gershom's maternal grandfather, was a Midianite and although they had some knowledge of God there were vital missing elements from their pattern of faith. As far as the record shows Jethro was never brought into covenant with God. He had lots of information but a distant relationship with God. (there’s a sober warning!)

Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant and Midian although descended from Abraham (Gen 25:1-2) but by Keturah. Midian was not a child of promise but of the flesh; he was never party to the covenant promises which Abraham received. He had the right father but the wrong mother. We can compare the Galatians comments on another child of Abraham’s who had the right father but the wrong mother. (Gal 4:22-23) The Midianites became of the traditional enemies of the people of Israel. Again we can remind ourselves of the Galatians truth; “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” (Gal 4:29 KJVS) The Midianites were the people that God raised Gideon to deal with. (Judg 6:1-2)

We also find that during the Exodus period the Midianites were in alliance with the Moabites. “And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came unto Balaam, and spake unto him the words of Balak.”(Num 22:7 KJVS) It is illuminating to trace the history of the Midianites and their opposition to God and his plans. )Gen 25:2,4; 36:35; 37:28,36; Ex 2:15-16; 3:1; 4:19; 18:1; Num 10:29; 22:4,7; 25:6,14-15,17-18; 31:2-3,7-9; Josh 13:21; Judg 6:1-3,6-7,11,13-14,16,33; 7:1-2,7-8,12-15,23-8:1; 8:3,5,12,22,26,28; 9:17; 1Kings 11:18; 1Chr 1:32-33,46; Psa 83:9; Is 9:4; 10:26; 60:6; Hab 3:7)The Midianites are religious compromisers who will ultimately frustrate the purposes of God.

Here is my scenario… Moses first child is born and pretty little bird Zipporah says ‘you’re not with your own people now there is no need to circumcise Gershom’. But Moses refuses to hear her reasonings and Gershom is circumcised. When the next child comes along a few years later Moses recollections of his early days are somewhat dimmed and perhaps it doesn’t seem such a big issue any more. This time when Zipporah sings her song (Zipporah means Little Bird) Moses relents and the second son is not circumcised. So there is a male in Moses family who has not been circumcised and it looks as if Moses has got away with it.

But on the journey to Egypt the past comes back with a vengeance. Circumcision speaks of the ‘crucifixion of the flesh’ and a refusal to trust in natural energy. Moses will be God’s spokesman but the power that delivers Israel will be God’s alone. Moses is made to see this plainly. In the caravanserai God holds Moses in a death grip and Zipporah somehow knows what the issue is. It’s that circumcision thing again! She circumcises her youngest son (just the one) and throws the foreskin at Moses’ feet with a cry of exasperation at her husbands ‘bloody religion’. “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.” (Ex 4:25-26 KJVS) Zipporah has gone through the ritual but at heart she is still a Midianite. She has finally obeyed but not without a final protest.

God cannot and will not use ‘uncircumcised/uncrucified' natural strength to effect his deliverances and Moses, [i][b]and we too[/b][/i], must learn that lesson lest we die.

Most of the above is ‘speculation’. It is my ‘best fit’ hypothesis.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/3/29 14:09Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Quote:
Didn't God tell Balaam to go and then get mad at Balaam for going?



God had also said to Balaam, "but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do." It seems to me that God commanded Balaam to wait for the His command. Indeed, He was to go with the men in the morning, but not until the Lord told Him to do so.

It is kind of like a commanding officer telling a soldier, "In the morning, we will attack." And yet, in the morning, the soldier needs to wait until the commanding officer rises and goes first. Balaam left before the Lord gave him the word. And so, the Lord was angered. The Word of the Lord should proceed us.

Quote:
Also, why did the Angel speak against Balaam for hitting his donkey when Balaam never saw the angel because his eyes were not opened?



Balaam left without receiving the Word of the Lord. He went before the Word. Therefore, Balaam's eyes were blinded to the Word. Balaam didn't see the angel because his heart was not ready to receive the Word.

Before Balaam's eyes could be opened to the truth, first he had to be humbled. The incident with the donkey was a humbling experience. This was a form a discipline in order to train Balaam to only speak the word of the Lord. Notice how the angel commanded Balaam to proceed once he repented of his sin. The Lord was not angry that Balaam was going with the men. The Lord was angered that Balaam did not wait upon the Lord for his word.

We all can take a lesson from this incident. If the Lord is to use us, we must wait for Christ to lead us, and not rely upon our own understanding.

In Christ,

Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2007/3/29 16:14Profile
Goldminer
Member



Joined: 2006/11/7
Posts: 1178
Alabama

 Re:

[color=0000CC]Num 22:12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they [are] blessed. [/color]

It says here that he did have God's word


_________________
KLC

 2007/3/29 16:34Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Thanks for all this insight.

 2007/3/29 16:40Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re: Exodus 4:24???

Quote:
this was due to his child not being circumcised..I find it a odd verse coming so close after God had spoken to him ,and sent him on his mission...it doesn't seem to add up



The answers given thus far are immensely insightful. In addition, I hope to add a bit more understanding.

When reading through the chapter, it does seem to come up suddenly. Why would this happen, especially after the Lord called Moses to such a great service?

What we must realize is that when God met with Moses at the burning bush, the Lord also went with Moses from that point on. The Lord was with Moses as God's Word was in his mouth (verse 15). Moses became a prophet of the Lord.

As such, when Moses son had encountered his father, he encountered a changed person. No longer was Moses merely a man of flesh. The Word of the Lord was with him. And so, it came about that as Moses traveled with his son to Egypt, the Lord met with the son of Moses as it says in verse 24.

"on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death"

The son of Moses was unclean in the eyes of the Lord. As such, the Lord sought to put him to death. The Word of the Lord reigns. The son of Moses needed to be circumcised or suffer death.

The Lord's desire obviously was to see Moses' son circumcised, not to die. The Lord does not wish to see anyone come unto death. However, for the Word of the Lord to stand, one or the other must occur. The son of Moses was an Israelite by blood of Moses as passed down to his child. As such, the Lord sought death in order to bring conviction. When convicted, we see an immediate response. When Moses and his wife feared the death of their son, they immediately responded and circumcised their son. As such, they upheld the word of the Lord.

This, of course, was done for God's glory, but also was done for Moses. How could Moses stand before the Hebrews and proclaim God's Word when he had an uncircumcised son? This way, who could say anything against Moses as being a servant of the Lord?

If we apply this to our modern day, what we find amazing is not only that God forgave Moses for his sin of not circumcising his son, the Lord also lead Moses unto righteousness. It was the Lord who made Moses righteous, not by any works of his own. Moses did not obey the Lord. Instead, the Lord lead Moses and kept him on the path of righteousness.

Hope this helps,

In Christ,

Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2007/3/29 16:54Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy