Tag: History

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.

Further Reading on Old Earth Creationism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Redeeming Science by Vern PoythressMy recent post in response to Justin Taylor’s article explaining Biblical reasons for viewing the six days of creation as not 24-hour periods has received a lot of attention. My Facebook profile doesn’t normally light up so much! And I engaged in some endless blog debates at Sharper Iron, and another site.

I’ve read a lot more on old earth creationism lately, and see the need to continue my studies in this area personally. Justin Taylor recommended a few sources for additional reading, and I wanted to share those here with a couple additions of my own, for the benefit of my readers.

For a simple explanation from a Christian geologist of the evidence for an old earth, this post (and his series, linked at the bottom) are helpful.

My primary reason for holding to an old-earth position is detailed in this article – God speaks through creation and He doesn’t deceive. For additional explanation of how the Bible allows for an old earth, see this post.

For two free e-books from a Reformed persuasion, which model a helpful and careful consideration of this debate, see:

Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythres – ebook (free – PDF) / paperback (Westminster Bookstore)

A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith Mathison – ebook (free) / not available in paperback

Justin Taylor also recommends the Presbyterian Church in America’s “Report of the Creation Study Committee”.

A brief booklet by Vern Poythress is also available free in pdf: Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1.

Rejecting Geocentrism: What’s the Real Motivation?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I feel that the question of the age of the earth has become much more caustic in recent years. This debate has been increasingly polarized with each camp thinking the absolute worst of the other. But how important is such a debate anyway? I would contend that the earth’s age is not all that important as Christians who firmly reject natural evolution are to be found on both sides of that question.

Recently this debate was again brought to our attention through a pair of high profile blog posts. Justin Taylor (Senior VP and Publisher at Crossway), whose blog is hosted by The Gospel Coalition, shared the following post: “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.” This post was not well accepted by young earth creationists such as Ken Ham. Ham came out with a strongly worded response: “Rejecting Six Literal Days — What’s the Real Motivation?” Now, never mind that just a couple days prior, Taylor had shared “5 Scientific Problems with Current Theories of Biological and Chemical Evoluion.” Poor guy, he is getting flak from both sides of the creation science debate!

As I read Ham’s title and then his blog post, I first bristled at his willingness to read Taylor’s motives. Is not grappling with the text important, whether or not modern science pulls us one way or another? Here is a sampling of Ham’s reasoning:

I have found over and over again that because of the outside influence from the secular world in regard to an old earth/universe… many… will try to reinterpret the days of creation, or somehow allow for long ages somewhere in Genesis 1… to justify meshing Genesis with what is claimed to be “science.” Of course, when the word science is used in relation to the age of the earth/universe, we are dealing with historical science (beliefs based on fallible assumptions) not observational science (the kind of science that builds technology).

I am prepared to go out on a limb, on the basis of my experience in the biblical creation apologetics ministry and of all I’ve read over the past 40+ years, to say this. When Christian leaders today are rejecting a dogmatic stand on six literal, 24-hour days of creation and a young earth, if you search their writings or question them, you will find that ultimately their thinking is being controlled by the belief in an old earth/universe (billions of years)…. You simply do not get the idea of millions or billions of years from Scripture—it comes from outside of Scripture….

And thus I am saying the age of the earth/universe comes down to an authority issue.

On second thought, Ham might be right. At the root of attempts to re-examine Genesis stands the scientific discovery that the earth is unimaginably old. But ultimatley, we must ask, is it wrong to examine afresh our interpretation of Scripture in light of science? I would argue no, and I believe Ham himself is guilty of the same thing.

I’m talking about geocentrism – the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. This was the Christian interpretation of the world prior to Copernicus’ revolution. Even the early Reformers did not countenance a rejection of this view. I just shared a review of a Christian scholar from the 1960s who still held to a preference for geocentrism even then. And some conservative Christian professors today still argue for such a view.

Science is clear, and the observations shows that the earth is not the center of the universe, and looking at Scripture in a fresh light, the church came to agree that phenomenological language does not constitute an assertion that the earth actually has 4 corners, and is fixed on pillars, with the sun going on a journey around the immobile earth each day.

Ham tries to quibble over the science behind an old earth by claiming that such science is not observational – but this is to turn science on its head. Much of the science that gives us techonology is not strictly observational, but based on observations which reinforce interpretations based on an examination of the evidence. And there are scientific tests done with carbon-14 and a host of other elements, that all agree. Blind tests with controls. Ham and many dispute the validity of such tests but have yet to come up with alternative tests that consistently (with similar controls) demonstrate a young age for the earth. These tests done by modern science converge with astronomical observations and learnings from astrophysics. At the very least many creation scientists would claim that the earth has an appearance of age. Doesn’t Answers in Genesis spend a lot of time grappling over the question of distant starlight?

Rejecting a young earth is not necessarily a matter of authority. The Scripture has authority, we all agree. The question is what does the text actually say. To go back to Taylor’s post, this really is an interpretational issue. There are clues in the text that today’s widespread Christian interpretation about the age of the earth may be in error. This would be similar to the widespread views of Christians in the 1600s being wrong about the position of the earth. Is it wrong to look anew at our interpretations and the Ancient Near Eastern evidence of Genesis 1-3 being of a particular genre. Could not some of the arguments Taylor offers be an honest grappling with the text in light of the influence of science and history.

Bending on our interpretation, reexamining the evidence — these actions do not prove one is abandoning biblical authority and embracing natural evolutionary science. Taylor himself gives us 5 reasons to doubt the current state of evolutionary theory. Instead these actions are incumbent on faithful Christian leaders. We need to make sure our interpretation is firmly grounded in the text. A lot is at stake in getting this right. Let’s make sure we die on the proper hill.

Some have examined the evidence afresh and have come away with a stronger position for a young earth. Don’t look at those who disagree with you and criticize them for examining the evidence too. We all are trying to grapple with science and our interpretation of Scripture. Where we disagree, lets do so charitably and with recognition that this isn’t an authority issue. Both sides uphold the authority of the text. We are all trying to make sure our interpretation is sound.

Classic Look at an Old Book: “Space Age Science” by Edward F. Hills

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Space Age Science by Edward F HillsEdward F. Hills is best known for his 1956 book The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts (Christian Research Press). Assessments of Hills’ legacy are offered by both King James Only advocates (here and here), and critics (here). All agree that Hills was unique in being the only defender of the King James that had studied in the field of textual criticism, a ThD from Harvard, no less.

It was actually by reading Hills’ work, that I first began to doubt the tenets of King James onlyism, since he is honest with the evidence and admits to a few errors in the Textus Receptus. Hills also espouses a more Calvinistic bent in his theology than I had been exposed to up to that time, but what most made me pause in my reading of Hills, was his unabashed acceptance of geocentrism. He is not the only King James proponent to hold to geocentrism (the idea that the sun and planets rotate around the earth), see this article by Dr. Thomas Strouse.

With this wariness in my mind, I was intriguted when I found a copy of another smaller title written by Edward Hills: Space Age Science (Christian Research Press, 1964). In this title it appears he backs off of his geocentric views, somewhat – but later editions of his more well known work do not clarify matters.

Here is a brief review of this book, which I recently read with interest, particularly in light of the modern debates over science and the Bible.

This book displays an interesting perspective on science and faith, from the early 1960s. Hills does a good job explaining Einstein’s theories, but his critiques and biblical application don’t stand on much. He doesn’t cite authorities backing up his claims.

At first glance, it appears that in this book, Hills backs away from geocentrism (the view that the earth is stationary and the planets rotate around it). He makes the interesting observation that according to Einstein, Ptolemaic theory (stationary earth) and Copernican theory (stationary sun) are interchangeable and both equally true depending on your perspective. But then he clearly distances himself from a geocentric view:

“When we consider what the Scriptures say concerning the movements of the heavenly bodies, we see that they by no means teach the Ptolemaic theory” (p. 55). He goes on to quote Ps. 19:6 as showing the sun moves on its circuit. And points out the context of Ps. 93:1 a verse taken to prove geocentrism. He points out that God “hangeth the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7) and says “The astronomy of the Bible is not earth-centered but God-centered” (p. 55).

After doing some searching, I did find that this contradicts what Hills states in his book The King James Version Defended. There (in the 4th edition, 1984, pg. 7) he states that he thinks it likely that Tycho Brahe’s theory (the predecessor of Copernicus) that the earth rotates on its axis and the sun and planets rotate around the earth is “probably correct.” It appears his conclusions in this volume (Space Age Science) are tentative and underplayed.

Another intriguing element of this book was his concession that God’s initial creation may have been just “mere energy out of which matter was later constituted” (p. 71). But then he disavows the deep time involved in modern astrophysics: “No billion years were required for the light of even the farthest star to reach our earth’s atmosphere, for God’s almighty power was able to bring it there in an instant of time” (p. 73). He even suggests that this may be what is intimated by the fact that God “set” the great lights in the firmament (p. 73).

Overall this is a fascinating insight into a Christian scholar trying to grapple with modern science from a believing point of view. I don’t think his qualifications from a scientific background fit him well for writing this book, and I don’t follow him in all his positions; but his attempt to apply the Bible and asses modern scientific developments is laudable.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon.com, Bible Baptist Bookstore.

About “Classic Look at an Old Book” posts: These posts are short-form book reviews of older Christian books. Many of these works are not widely available or in print today.

Quotes to Note 40: Spurgeon on Election

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I’ve done 40 Quotes to Note posts, over the years now, and I have yet to post a quote from Charles Spurgeon! Perhaps I haven’t because he is so quotable, everyone else quotes him. But I stumbled across this quote again as I was teaching through my Sunday School series on Reformation doctrine again this Fall.

The above graphic was produced with the help of Logos 6’s visual copy feature. Highlight text from a work in Logos and easily create a quotable graphic as you see below with just a few clicks! To learn more about Logos 6 click here.

Logos gives the source of the quote as: Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel: 1874 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1874), 44. I originally found it in Joel Beeke, Living for God’s Glory (Reformation Trust, 2008), 60. Beeke’s source was: Spurgeon, C.H. Spurgeon Autobiography, Vol. 1: The Early Years, 1834-1859 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 166.