Category: Book Excerpts

Another Look at Zipporah and Her “Bloody Husband” (Exodus 4:24-26)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

A Commentary on Exodus by Duane A. GarrettThe short account of Zipporah being forced to circumcise her son is one of the most enigmatic and puzzling texts for modern readers. I want to look at the text here briefly and allow Duane A. Garrett to help clear things up. Garrett is the author of the latest commentary in the Kregel Exegetical Library. His A Commentary on Exodus is absolutely superb, I am thoroughly enjoying it and hope to have a review up soon.

Here is our text, first in the ESV and then in Garrett’s translation provided in the commentary:

24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision. (ESV)

24 Now it happened along the way at a lodging place that YHWH encountered him and sought to put him to death. 25 And Zipporah took a flint, and she cut off her son’s foreskin, and she touched his feet, and she said, “You are my hatan damim (kindsman by the blood of circumcision)!” 26 And he let him alone. In that episode she said hatan damim with reference to the circumcision ritual. (Garrett, p. 222-223)

I cannot reproduce Garrett’s entire discussion, but will provide the introduction to his discussion of this text. I’ll also summarize some of his many arguments (against the “standard interpretation” and for his own) and then present his conclusion. I’ll also excerpt his theological take-home points as well.

This text is very difficult. What would probably pass for the standard interpretation among evangelical Protestants is as follows. Moses had two sons, but he had not yet circumcised one of them. On the way to Egypt he was suddenly incapacitated (by a severe illness) as a punishment from God for this neglect. Moses, calling from his sickbed, told Zipporah what the problem was and that she had to circumcise the boy, and she performed the circumsion. By doing this, she averted the wrath of God against Moses. But she found the whole process disgusting and blamed Moses for putting her through the ordeal, so she threw the boy’s foreskin at Moses’s feet and called him bloddy and disgusting). Her revulsion toward what had happened was so great that she went back to her father at that time; we do not see her again until Exod. 18:2.

Every aspect of the above interpretation, except that Zipporah circumcised her son, is almost cerainly wrong…. (p. 225-226)

Some of his key arguments are that the text calls the boy “her son” and focuses on Zipporah, not Moses. There is no indication in the text that Moses is present with her at this time. The pronoun “him” likely points forward to the boy as being sick. The text doesn’t say Moses told Zipporah to do anything. Zipporah a shepherdess was likely very familiar wtih anatomy and familiar with circumcision rites in her own tribe. The most natural reading of the text is that she touches the boy’s feet – not those of Moses. “Feet” can be a euphemism for genitals, but doesn’t need to be in this case. It could be a ritual touching of the feet, similar to the annointing in Leviticus that puts blood and annointing oil on the priest’s big toes. The same word for “touch” here is used in Exod. 12:22 which may point to this being a ritual ceremony.

Garrett’s longest discussion is on the “bloody bridegroom” terminology and the use of the various Hebrew terms. He takes it as a liturgical expression that was probably used in Midianite circumcisions and it survives here in Exodus as a “linguistic fossil,” and does not follow normal Hebrew meaning. The specific interpretation he gives for the entire account does seem quite probable and I tend to agree with his view here on this term, particularly since it doesn’t mention Moses but is said of the circumcision act. Verse 26 has to remind the Hebrew readers what this phrase was directed toward, since it is an unusual expression even for Hebrew readers.

Here then is Garrett’s interpretation:

We might, therefore, suggest the following reconstruction of the story behind this text. Moses and Zipporah set out for Egypt. Along the way, their son suddenly became deathly ill. Zipporah recognized that the boy needed to be circumcised, and she did the act with a flint knife (flint can be more finely sharpened than can bronze and is therefore better for performing surgery). After the removal of the foreskin, she ritually touched the boy’s feet (or genitals) with her hand or the flint while saying, “You are hatan damim to me” (a member of my community by virture of the blood of circumcision). These formulaic words concluded the circumcision ceremony. The act formalized the inclusion of the boy in the community. After that, the boy recovered. Ziporah had turned aside the wrath of God.

Which son was it? We do not know, but since there is no birth report for Eliezer during their time in Midian, it is possible that he was born right about the time Moses set out for Egypt. This would explain Moses’s desire to get a donkey for the woman and the children. Why was one son not circumcised? Again, we do not know, but if the above conjecture is correct, it may be that they thought it dangerous to circumcise the boy right as they set out on a journey across the wilderness. ON the other hand, it may be that the uncircumcised son was Gershom, the firstborn, as some Jewish interpreters have maintained. Why is the boy called “her son” and not “Moses’s son”? Probably because Moses play no role in the story; this is about what Zipporah did.

An important feature of the text, however, is how it is linked to its context. In v. 20, Moses provides for “his sons,” while v. 23 speaks of “my son” and “your son,” and v. 25 speaks of “her son.” Thus, the issue of how parents treat their sons dominates this passage. In addition, as Sarna points out, 4:22-23 is focused on the life and death of the “firstborn,” while 4:24-26 indicates that the son must be circumcised in order to live…. This parallel further suggests that it was the son, not Moses, whose life was in danger…. In the broader context of Exodus, the portrayal of Zipporah turning aside God’s wrath from her son is paralleled in Moses’s doing the same for all of Israel in Exod. 32:9-14. (p. 230-232)

From this interpretation of the text, here are a few of Garrett’s theological take-home points:

The circumcision of Zipporah’s son makes the point that one cannot be considered to be part of Israel, and so to be YHWH’s son, unless one is circumcised. For the Israelites, the warning was that they could only escape the great wrath of God directed against Egypt’s sons by being sure that their own sons were circumcised. By analogy, one is not one of God’s people by mere association….

Zipporah, in her actions, demonstrates spiritual insight applied to the protection of her children. Spiritual wisdom and intervention is necessary in order to save one’s children from destruction….

Christ is the supreme example of the obedient son. He is also the true firstborn of God, and he provided for us the circumcision that removes the defilement of the flesh and allows us to join the people of God (Eph. 2:11-13; Col. 2:11). (p. 232)

I found this treatment extremely helpful and illuminating. This is an example of the care with which Garrett handles the text and is representative of his exegetical treatment throughout the commentary. He is not usually offering an innovative interpretation (as he does above), but he brings clarity and his masterful knowledge of Hebrew to bear on the questions at hand.

Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:

• Westminster Bookstore
• Christianbook.com
• Amazon.com
• Direct from Kregel

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Moving from Luke 2 (The Christmas story) to Worship

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Merry Christmas everyone. The wonder of Christmas is that Jesus Christ the Lord stooped to be born as a humble baby in a lowly manger. My wish is for everyone to take time this Christmas and stop to contemplate the wonder and be moved enough to truly worship our dear Savior.

I recently received a new study Bible that I plan to review in the near future. I turned to it this morning and found some encouraging words in the “Thoughts for Personal/Family Worship” following Luke chapter 2. The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible (RHB, 2014) had these poignant thoughts that I leave with my readers this Christmas:

1.  As we read about the birth of Christ, many focus on the shepherds and angels. Certainly there are many lessons in what we are told about them and in what they did. Most important, however, is what Christ Himself did in His birth: He came to this lost world to be a Savior. Equally important is what God the Father did in the birth of His Son. He sent His Son in order to glorify Himself in the salvation of lost and miserable sinners like these shepherds. Reflect upon how low God stooped by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin (Rom. 8:3). Why was it necessary for the Lord to come in such humiliation as to lie in a manger rather than in a king’s crib? What does this foreshadow about the manner in which Christ would save sinners?

2.  When Jesus was born the angels of God sang “Glory to God in the highest,” and the shepherds were glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen. Godly old Simeon was moved by the Holy Spirit to give public praise to God, and faithful Anna thanked the Lord and told many of the birth of the Redeemer. Why should Christ’s coming move Christians to sing and praise God? If our hearts are cold and sluggish to worship, what might this reveal about us?  (pg. 1457)

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon or Westminster Books.

Quotes to Note 39: Alec Motyer on the Church

~ Bob Hayton

Alec Motyer has spent his life studying the riches of Isaiah, and I’m almost finished enjoying the fruits of his study so helpfully laid out in Isaiah By the Day: A New Devotional Translation (Christian Focus, 2011). In each of the daily readings in this book, Motyer presents his translation with commentary and offers a devotional in line with the text of that day’s passage. I came across a jewel of a quote about the Church, with special focus on denominations and how each local church is to be a picture of the whole Church. I thought it was a great way to look at things and offer it hear for your benefit as well.

The truth remains the same today: the Lord’s earthly people are themselves the temple in which he lives by his Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16), the locus and display of his holiness and beauty. Well may we mourn that our sinfulness, divisiveness, our failure in biblical distinctiveness, and our manifest lack of holiness have marred the image. Who, looking at today’s church–denominational or local–can see the likeness of Jesus? And this is not a matter only of denominational failure, though that is all too plain. The Bible knows nothing of our “denominationalism,” and if Isaiah’s wording promts us to put our hand to reform and renovation then its proper focus is the local church to which we each belong. When we look at the merest sliver of a crescent moon we don’t say, “Oh, there’s part of the moon.” We say “Look, there’s the moon.” In the same way each local church, however small–or in the eyes of onlookers, insignificant–is meant to be a mirror and image of the whole, an earthly replica of the heavenly reality where Christ is all. We should be able to look at the fellowships to which we belong and say, “There is The Church,” bearing the two oustanding marks of holiness and beauty: obeying the command, “Be holy because I am holy” (Lev. 19:2), and displaying the beauty of Jesus in all its gatherings, relationships and individual characters.

~ excerpted from p. 306, on Isaiah 63:15-64:12.

For a sample reading from this helpful book by Motyer, see this post.

Robert Stein on the Language of Prophecy

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

I wanted to share an important excerpt from Robert Stein’s helpful book on biblical interpretation. This helps in understanding the prophetic genre, and makes good sense of Peter’s quote of Joel 2 in Acts 2.

An additional proof for his claim comes in the recognition that the prophets often maek use of language from the covenant curses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They are using a specific language intentionally – the language of covenant. They are not just describing a foreseen future in strictly literal terms.

Much of the terminology found in prophecy makes use of customary imagery used in this genre. For instance, in the judgment prophecy found in Isaiah 13:9-11 we read:

“See, the day of the LORD is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger — to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless.”

Because of the cosmic imagery found in this prophecy, many interpreters assume that it is referring to the end of history. Yet it is clear from Isaiah 13:1… and 19… that the prophecy concerns the Babylonian empire of the sixth century B.C. The Babylonian kingdom that destroyed Jerusalem and the Solomonic temple, this empire that sent the cream of Judean society into exile, was about to experience divine judgment.

Yet this judgment is described in cosmic terminology. Such terminology, however, was part of the imagery and symbolism available to the prophets when they sought to describe God’s intervention in history and his sovereign rule over the kingdoms of this world (cf. Dan. 2:21; 4:17,25,34-35; 5:21). Such imagery was not meant to be interpreted literally. The sun was not actually going to be darkened; the moon would not stop giving its light; the stars would not stop showing their light. “What” the author willed to communicate by this imagery, that God was going to bring judgment upon Babylon, was to be understood “literally.” And that willed meaning, God’s judgment upon Babylon, did take place. This prophecy was fulfilled with the rise and rule of the Persian empire over the territories once ruled by Babylon, and the later readers of this prophecy knew that this prophecy had indeed been fulfilled. Babylon had been judged just as the prophecy proclaimed, and it was God’s doing just as the cosmic imagery described. The imagery, itself, however, was understood by the prophet and his audience as part of the stock terminology used in this kind of literature to describe God’s intervention into history.

In Acts 2:14-21 Peter and Luke interpreted the events of Pentecost in a similar way as they saw in it the fulfillment of the prophetic message of Joel:

“Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my SPirit in those days, and they will prophesy. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'”

These cosmic signs did not literally take place at Pentecost, even though what the author willed to convey by those signs did. God did enter into history and bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. God in fulfillment of his promises gave to the church the blessed gift of the new covenant….

There have been attempts to deny that the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 was fulfilled at Pentecost. Usually this is due to a misunderstanding of the figurative nature of this cosmic terminology. Some have suggested that Luke and Peter believed that Pentecost was “kind of like” what Joel prophesied but not its actual fulfillment. Such a manipulative interpretation of this passage of Acts, however, is impossible in light of Peter’s words in Acts 2:16: “this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.” Furthermore such interpretative gymnastics are unnecessary when we are willing to accept what the author meant by the use of such terminology. We need only note other passages to see how widespread the use of such cosmic terminology is in the Bible (Isa. 24:23; Jer. 4:28; 13:16; 15:9; Ezek. 32:7-8; Joel 2:10,31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Hab. 3:11; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24-25; Luke 21:25; Rev. 6:12). (Attempts to see Mark 15:33; Matt. 27:45; Luke 23:44-45 as the fulfillment of this prophecy also err. They do not explain the signs of Acts 2:19 and most of 2:20. Second, and more important, they err because Peter and Luke associate the fulfillment of these signs with what is happening then and there on the day of pentecost.

— Excerpt from A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules by Robert H. Stein, (Baker Academic, 1994), p. 91-93

Reformation Gems 7: Konrad Pellikan on the Gift of Faith

~ Bob Hayton

Reformation Commentary on Scriptures: Volume 6: ActsReformation Gems are excerpts from selections contained in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, a new commentary series from IVP which gathers the best Reformation-era comments on the text together all in one set. The volumes in this commentary series resurrect long-forgotten voices from the Reformation age and in so doing they recover the piety and vivacity of that era. I hope that by sharing some excerpts from this series, I will edify my readers and promote this important commentary series.
 _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ 

Today’s selection comes from the latest volume in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series: Volume VI (Acts). I turned to Acts 16:14, and the story of Lydia’s conversion, looking for Reformation-era comments on that classic text on God’s opening Lydia’s heart to pay attention to the message. I was not disappointed and found a gem in the words of Konrad Pellikan, a German scholar who worked closely with Ulrich Zwingli in the Swiss reformation. I appreciated both his observations on the nature of faith, as well as his practical application to “pray to the Lord to open our heart.”

Here is the excerpt from Pellikan’s commentary on Acts, originally published sometime between 1532-1539 (with key sentences bolded for emphasis):

Lydia’s Faith a Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Konrad Pellikan: The gospel usually bears the greatest amount of fruit where it is least expected…. With Lydia we can compare how Paul was cast out of Antioch by religious women who were overly zealous for God but lacking in understanding. This excellent mother and merchant, however, understood the gospel and repented of her sins. And she became repentant not by nature but by grace. the Lord, it says, opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. For no one can have faith in the gospel by his own strength, but only by the gift of the Holy Spirit, and not because he has faith beforehand. Therefore, on hearing the promises of the gospel, let us despair concerning the power of the flesh, but let us pray to the Lord to open our heart, to give us the gift of the Spirit, to put relief in our heart and to fill us with the work of righteousness. (pg. 228)

About the Reformation-era author: Konrad Pellikan (1478-1556). German Reformed Hebraist and theologian. Pellikan attended the University of Heidelberg, where he mastered Hebrew under Johannes Reuchlin. In 1504 Pellikan published one of the first Hebrew grammars that was not merely a translation of the work of mediaeval rabbis. While living in Basel, Pellikan assisted the printer Johannes Amerbach, with whom he published some of Luther’s early writings. He also worked with Sebastian Munster and Wolfgang Capito on a Hebrew Psalter (1516). In 1526, after teaching theology for three years at the University of Basel, Huldrych Zwingli brought Pellikan to Zurich to chair the faculty of Old Testament. Pellikan’s magnum opus is a seven-volume commentary on the entire Bible (except Revelation) and the Apocrypha: it is often heavily dependent upon the work of others (esp. Desiderius Erasmus and Johannes Oecolampadius). (pg. 399)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XI (Galatians, Ephesians) at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, Christianbook.com, or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.