Under attack – Part II (Exod 4:24-26)

In today’s post I want to address some uncomfortable questions that we might have about God’s attack on Moses (see Part I here). Why did God want to put Moses to death when He has just sent him to Egypt? If the issue was Moses’s ambiguous attitude or his son’s circumcision, couldn’t God have just told him so? Why submit him to such a horrible experience?

Let me step back and reflect on a similar incident where God also acts in a seemingly contradictory way. In the story of Balaam, the king of Moab sends for the prophet to curse Israel (Num 22:2-6). Balaam initially acquiesces to God’s will and refuses to go with the envoys (Num 22:7-14). However, when they return to him (presumably offering a higher reward), he inquires of God again (Num 22:15-19). Despite his words that money cannot tempt him, he seems ambivalent in his heart; otherwise why ask for God’s will again when nothing has changed except the price for his services? He is tempted by the reward but also wants God’s approval. God’s response is permission to go, but Balaam is admonished to say only what God tells him (Num 22:20). Although we are not told, we may deduce from God’s anger (Num 22:22) that He knows the true state of Balaam’s heart. His angel then bars the path, which the prophet (blinded by greed) ironically cannot see. More is needed than words to break the impasse and bring about true transformation. Likewise, God has already had a long discussion with Moses and yet there are gaps in his commitment. The Lord here demonstrates to him what is at stake. Often, a ‘show rather than tell’ approach is more effective in bringing about change than words alone.

Despite appearances, God is on Moses’s side. The strange reference that God ‘sought to put him to death’ (Exod 4:24) reveals a gap between intent and outcome. Normally, God acts, and it happens, but here, He almost invites someone to step into the breach and save Moses. Perhaps he became ill and was struggling for his life allowing time for Zipporah to act. But how did she know what was needed? Circumcision was practised elsewhere in the region as a rite of passage into adulthood (usually performed in adolescence or shortly before marriage), so she could have been familiar with the custom. It may even have been part of her culture. It is also possible that the couple discussed the issue previously. Most importantly, though, God must have helped Zipporah understand the situation. The fact that the son is called ‘her son’ (Exod 4:25) may indicate her love and preference for him, which would explain why she could have insisted on bringing him up according to her cultural heritage. It also highlights perhaps his integration into the customs of Zipporah’s Midianite background.[1] However, God desired to bring transformation into the whole family. Zipporah needed to come on board the Israelite commitment, as the family was about to join the rest of God’s people in Egypt. Moses had to recognise the dangers of a half-hearted commitment and their son was required to be brought into the protection of the covenant relationship with God.

Sometimes God puts us through life experiences that may be painful, but which result in deeper transformation. If we find ourselves in such a situation, may we seek Him to know how to respond. Today, there are also countless families divided in matters of faith: a spouse who has never been a Christian or who has drifted away or turned against God, children who do not follow in the Christian faith. God invites us to step into the gap and pray for our loved ones hoping that the Lord might intervene in their lives and turn them to Himself.

---

[1] Hebrew narrative frequently expresses such nuances through the relationality of the characters. E.g. Esau is Isaac’s son; Jacob is Rebekah’s in Gen 27:5 expressing the parents’ preference (cf. Gen 25:28). Likewise, Michal who is married to David, is described as ‘Saul’s daughter’ when she ridicules David and turns against him (2 Sam 6:20).