, [], 10 Okt 2005 Jim West, Exodus 4:24, biblical-studies.blogspot.com; Joe Cathey asks the general question- how do we interpret this crux? Here it is: כד ויהי בדרך במלון ויפגשהו יהוה ויבקש המיתו Why
does Yahweh want to kill Moses? Every commentator and hence every
commentary on Exodus has to struggle with this unusual tidbit. Usually
the interpretation points in the direction of Moses' having not yet
been circumcised and hence the action of his wife to avert the disaster. כה ותקח צפרה צר ותכרת את ערלת בנה ותגע לרגליו ותאמר כי But
how in the world does Zipporah's somewhat brutal circumcision of her
son assuage Yahweh's wrath against Moses? Commentators call it an
"apotropaic". Yahweh is mad at Moses because Moses hasn't circumcised
his son yet. So he threatens his life. Sort of, "Do it now or you're
dead meat". Which really doesn't cast Yahweh in the light of the all
compassionate one. But is this reading correct? Or are we attempting to
interpret a fragment?
For instance, Keil and Delitszch opine: Although
in this passage it is the uncircumcised themselves who are threatened
with death, yet in the case of children the punishment fell upon the
parents, and first of all upon the father, who had neglected to keep
the commandment of God. Now, though Moses had probably omitted
circumcision simply from regard to his Midianitish wife, who disliked
this operation, he had been guilty of a capital crime, which God could
not pass over in the case of one whom He had chosen to be His
messenger, to establish His covenant with Israel. Hence He threatened
him with death, to bring him to a consciousness of his sin, either by
the voice of conscience or by some word which accompanied His attack
upon Moses; and also to show him with what earnestness God demanded the
keeping of His commandments. Still He did not kill him; for his sin had
sprung from weakness of the flesh, from a sinful yielding to his wife,
which could both be explained and excused on account of his position in
the Midianite's house.
To be sure, it is entirely
possible that the commentators are correct- Moses has not circumcised
his son so Yahweh forces the act by forcing the hand of Zipporah- who
in a rage flings the schmuck at Moses' own genitals (note the
euphemistic use of "feet" which frequently stands for "genitals" in the
Hebrew Bible). But if, on the other hand, we have simply a fragmentary
tale which has been destroyed in transmission and yet included in the
final edition of Exodus because - and here's the odd part- precisely
because it was fragmentary and incomprehensible. In other words, the
tradents kept this bit because they did not understand it. They
couldn't get rid of it because it was in the traditional material they
received- so they passed it on- without so much as a hint as to what it
meant.
In other words, we have no idea what the passage
originally meant because it's been corrupted in transmission at the
oral or early written stage. So what we get is lots of guesses and no
way of knowing which guess is right. Or, in the words of Luther, Ich habe gewiß fleißig studiert und habe dennoch kein Wort aus der ganzen Schrift vollständig verstanden.
Oh
and in case you are wondering, no, this is not historical remembrance,
it is theological historiography, id est- sermonizing. We have here, in
other words, a truncated sermon. No wonder it's virtually
incomprehensible.
Vertaling Bijbel, Kanttekeningen SV, [], En het geschiedde [29]op den weg, in de herberg, dat de HEERE hem tegenkwam, en zocht [30]hem te doden. 29. Te weten, naar Egypte. 30. Omdat hij de besnijdenis aan zijn zoon verzuimd had. Zie Gen.17:14.