Êxodo 4

Êxodo 4

MacArthur has an interesting note on firstborn - To the ancient Egyptians, the firstborn son was special and sacred, and the Pharaoh considered himself the only son of the gods. Now he heard of a whole nation designated as God's firstborn son, meaning "declared and treated as first in rank, preeminent, with the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of being actually the firstborn." The Lord pointedly referred to the nation collectively in the singular in order to show that He was a father in what He would do, i.e., bring a nation into existence, then nurture and lead him (cf. Dt 14:1, 2). Divine sonship, as in the pagan world's perverted concept of a sexual union between the gods and women, was never so much as hinted at in the way God used the term to express His relationship with Israel, who were His people, a treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (cf. Ex 6:7; 19:4-6).(MacArthur Study Bible) It is interesting that God instructed Moses to tell Pharaoh that Israel was God's son, His :firstborn, for Pharaoh believed that he alone was the "son of the gods." There is a bit of "in your face" implied in this declaration by God. Firstborn (01060)(bekor) means an offspring who came first in the order of birth (animals Ge 4:4) or persons (Ge 25:13). Swanson adds that bekor means "firstborn, usually, the first male offspring, the oldest son, with the associative meaning of prominence in the clan and privileges pertaining to clan and inheritance (Ge 43:33; Ne 10:37)." The firstborn of clean animals were sacrificed to the Lord (Dt. 12:6, 17), but the firstborn males of unclean animals could be redeemed (Nu 18:15) Currid - Yahweh calls Israel his ‘first-born son’. He uses the language of a family relationship. The status of the first-born in antiquity was one of great privilege. In the laws of Israel, the first-born had the right of headship of the family after the father died, and the right of receiving a double portion of inheritance (Deut. 21:17). It was a position of prominence and pre-eminence. The Septuagint (Lxx) translates bekor with Greek word prototokos (from protos = first, foremost, in place order or time; rank dignity + titko = beget, to bear, bring forth) can mean first-born chronologically (Lk 2:7), but refers primarily to position, rank, priority of position and emphasizes quality or kind, not time with the idea of "preeminence". So in Colossians 1:15+ Paul writes that Christ "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." In this passage the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus' rank as over and above creation. In both Greek and Jewish culture, the first-born was the son who had the right of inheritance. He was not necessarily the first one born chronologically. Vine writes bekor "represents the "firstborn" individual in a family (Gen. 25:13); the word can also represent the "firstborn" of a nation, collectively (Num. 3:46). The plural form of the word appears occasionally (Neh. 10:36); in this passage, the word is applied to animals. In other passages, the singular form of bekôr signifies a single "firstborn" animal (Lev. 27:26; kjv, "firstling") or collectively the "firstborn" of a herd (Exod. 11:5). The "oldest" or "firstborn" son (Exod. 6:14) had special privileges within the family. He received the special family blessing, which meant spiritual and social leadership and a double portion of the father's possessions, or twice what all the other sons received (Deut. 21:17). He could lose his blessing through misdeeds (Gen. 35:22) or by selling it (Gen. 25:29-34). God claimed all Israel and all their possessions as His own. As a token of this claim, Israel was to give Him all its "firstborn" (Exod. 13:1-16). The animals were to be sacrificed, redeemed, or killed, while the male children were redeemed either by being replaced with Levites or by the payment of a redemption price (Num. 3:40ff.). Israel was God's "firstborn"; in an idiom meaning a deadly disease (Job 18:13); the "first-born of the poor" is the poorest class of people (Isa. 14:30). Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words. online) Gilbrant - The references to first born animals, those that "open the womb," are found in a ritual sense. These animals are sacrificed to Yahweh, symbolic of his both his procreative and his sustaining powers. The latter is understood in that one could trust him to supply future animals as compensation. The former is understood in the context of redemption, as nonsacrificial animals must be redeemed by substitution (Num. 18:14). "But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat you shall not redeem; they are holy..." (Num. 18:17). Some pagan religions around Israel extended this practice to first born humans. Notably this was the case with the deity Molech, which some note should actually be pronounced Milcom. Many assume this vowel change in Hebrew was deliberate, as the authors inserted the vowels for the noun bôsheth, "shame" (HED #992). It is assumed that this was an epithet or a local (in this case, the royal court) manifestation of a god, presumedly Athtar (the same deity which was the national god of Moab under the epithet Chemosh). This god was worshipped by (among others) the Phoenicians, becoming a prime god in the Punic and Neo-Punic colonies. It is best known in the Hebrew Bible as the national god of the Ammonites. The ritual is spoken of with contempt, as the epitome of pagan practice (cf. 2 Ki. 16:3). Mesha, king of Moab, does this in face of the threat of an invasion from Israel (2 Ki. 3:27). The practice existed in Israel until the reform of Josiah, as Tophet (the site of the sanctuary for human sacrifices) was desecrated and all sanctuaries for Chemosh and Milcom were destroyed (2 Ki. 23:10, 13). Prophetic condemnation continued throughout the monarchy (e.g., Jer. 19:4-9; Eze. 16:20; Mic. 6:7). The practice of sacrificing one's first born was the backdrop of Gen. 22:1ff, as Yahweh tests Abraham by demanding he sacrifice Issac. The principle of substitution for first born humans is established in this narrative, as Yahweh provides a wild sheep for the sacrifice. The substitution became standardized as a payment of five shekels (Num. 3:47). Symbolically, the Levites are dedicated to Yahweh as an atonement for the first born (Num. 3:12; 8:14ff). These contexts go on to remind the people that all the first born belong to Yahweh, consecrated from the day he killed the first born among the Egyptians. The Levites and the firstling laws are a perpetual reminder of this act. The firstlings support the priesthood, composed of the symbolic first born of the people. The most important societal concept associated with the first born of humans is that of inheritance. The passing down of property to descendants is one of the prime problems that every society faces. The option selected by the Israelites for the process was the methodology known as primogeniture, that the first-born receives special consideration in the inheritance process. In Israelite law, the first born received special consideration, gaining a double portion of the inheritance, and other benefits in order to produce the next generational head of the patriarchal house. The right of the first born could be forfeited. This is a recurring theme among the patriarchs, as the concept of divine selection eradicates the societal mechanism. Reuben, committing incest by sexual activity with his father's (Jacob's) concubine Bilhah, is denied his right (Gen. 49:3f). Esau sells his right (Gen. 25:29ff), which is inadvertently confirmed by Issac his father orally (and legally) awarding the double portion to Jacob (Gen. 27:1ff). Other examples include Joseph over his half brothers and Solomon over Adonijah. Symbolically, Elisha, among the prophetic guild known as the "sons of the prophets," receives a double portion of Elijah's spirit, asserting his succession as leader of the guild (2 Ki. 2:9). The noun is also used metaphorically to underscore the degree of a concept. For example, the "first born of the poor" simply means "the poorest" (Isa. 14:30). There are examples when the word does not connote rights of being the first born. It is used to describe the eldest, both sons and daughters (Gen. 19:31). The significance of the first born is the backdrop to understanding the role of Jesus as Son with God the Father. Jesus was the possessor of all God had, as heir (and all humanity has the opportunity to become joint heirs). He is the "first born of creation" (Col. 1:15), and the "first born of the dead" (Col. 1:18). (Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary) Bekor - 123x in 101v firstborn(118), firstlings(1), most(1), oldest(3) - Gen. 4:4; Gen. 10:15; Gen. 22:21; Gen. 25:13; Gen. 27:19; Gen. 27:32; Gen. 35:23; Gen. 36:15; Gen. 38:6; Gen. 38:7; Gen. 41:51; Gen. 43:33; Gen. 46:8; Gen. 48:14; Gen. 48:18; Gen. 49:3; Exod. 4:22; Exod. 4:23; Exod. 6:14; Exod. 11:5; Exod. 12:12; Exod. 12:29; Exod. 13:2; Exod. 13:13; Exod. 13:15; Exod. 22:29; Exod. 34:20; Lev. 27:26; Num. 1:20; Num. 3:2; Num. 3:12; Num. 3:13; Num. 3:40; Num. 3:41; Num. 3:42; Num. 3:43; Num. 3:45; Num. 3:46; Num. 3:50; Num. 8:16; Num. 8:17; Num. 8:18; Num. 18:15; Num. 18:17; Num. 26:5; Num. 33:4; Deut. 12:6; Deut. 12:17; Deut. 14:23; Deut. 15:19; Deut. 21:15; Deut. 21:16; Deut. 21:17; Deut. 25:6; Deut. 33:17; Jos. 6:26; Jos. 17:1; Jdg. 8:20; 1 Sam. 8:2; 1 Sam. 17:13; 2 Sam. 3:2; 1 Ki. 16:34; 2 Ki. 3:27; 1 Chr. 1:13; 1 Chr. 1:29; 1 Chr. 2:3; 1 Chr. 2:13; 1 Chr. 2:25; 1 Chr. 2:27; 1 Chr. 2:42; 1 Chr. 2:50; 1 Chr. 3:1; 1 Chr. 3:15; 1 Chr. 4:4; 1 Chr. 5:1; 1 Chr. 5:3; 1 Chr. 6:28; 1 Chr. 8:1; 1 Chr. 8:30; 1 Chr. 8:39; 1 Chr. 9:5; 1 Chr. 9:31; 1 Chr. 9:36; 1 Chr. 26:2; 1 Chr. 26:4; 1 Chr. 26:10; 2 Chr. 21:3; Neh. 10:36; Job 1:13; Job 1:18; Job 18:13; Ps. 78:51; Ps. 89:27; Ps. 105:36; Ps. 135:8; Ps. 136:10; Isa. 14:30; Jer. 31:9; Ezek. 20:26; Mic. 6:7; Zech. 12:10 Exodus 4:23 "So I said to you, 'Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn."' Ex 11:5 Ex 12:29 Ps 78:51 105:36 135:8 Exodus 4 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries A DIRE WARNING TO PHARAOH So I said to you, 'Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you have refused to let him go Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn - This is a serious warning to give to the ruler of the most powerful nation on earth. It could easily result in losing one's head. Yet despite the "risk" Moses did not make any excuses or try to get God to soften the message. The Pharaoh had killed many of Israel's firstborn sons and this would be an "eye for an eye" judgment on Egypt and a direct assault on the royal line as the firstborn of Pharaoh was likely the one who assume the throne when Pharaoh died. These verses look forward to the final plague against Egypt describes in Exodus 11 and Exodus 12, the plague that would force Pharaoh to drive Israel from his sight (and site!) Note that this warning to Pharaoh appears to be given at the beginning of Moses' interactions with Pharaoh. John Hannah - Egyptians prized their firstborn sons, treating them as special. Strikingly Israel is God's son (cf. Hosea 11:1) and therefore sacred to Him. (Ibid) Exodus 4:24 Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. the lodging place - Ge 42:27 Ge 17:14 the LORD - Ex 3:18 Nu 22:22,23 1Ch 21:16 Ho 13:8 sought - Ge 17:14 Lev 10:3 1Ki 13:24 Exodus 4 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries MOSES' BRUSH WITH DEATH Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death - This may be Moses' third "near death experience," (so to speak) - Ex 2:15, Ex 3:14 (not mentioned but clearly a risk as Uzzah discovered), and here in Ex 4:24-26. I say "may be" because "him" is not specifically stated to be Moses. Moses himself was circumcised, but Gershom was not and theoretically he would have been the one at risk of being cut off. One reason most commentaries suggest it was Moses whose life was at risk is because some of the translations have added "Moses." For example, the excellent NET (NLT, NIV are similar) has "Now on the way, at a place where they stopped for the night, the LORD met Moses and sought to kill him." Note that the NAS (ESV, CSB) does not add "Moses. " Note however that although Moses is not in the Hebrew text in the next verse (Ex 4:25), almost every version inserts it. How did the LORD manifest Himself in seeking to put him to death? How did Zipporah know there was a life or death situation? How did she know that the issue in question was her uncircumcised son Gershom? We simply do not know. One has to wonder why does this somewhat mysterious event occur at this point. Clearly God is addressing a episode of significant disobedience in His servant Moses! Circumcision is to be performed at 8 days of age, and presumably his son was considerably older by this time. Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me." took a flint Jos 5:2,3 blood - 2Sa 16:7 Exodus 4 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries ZIPPORAH CUTS AND THEN CHARGES MOSES Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me - Zipporah gives new meaning to the passage in Genesis which describes Adam's wife as his "helpmate" (Genesis 2:18)! This is a mysterious passage. We know circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (see Ge 17:10-14). We know God is very serious about circumcision. Note especially God's sobering warning in Genesis 17:14 (Context = Ge 17:9-14) "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off (karath; Lxx = exolothreuo = utterly destroyed, completely cut off; see only NT use in Acts 3:23+) from his people; he has broken My covenant.” Obviously the son's failure to obtain circumcision was not his fault but was Moses' fault, so it may have been Moses who would be punished, not his son. Moses surely must have known the divine command to circumcise every male of one's household, thus this represents clear disobedience! Somehow Zipporah grasped the gravity of the situation and immediately grasped her son's foreskin and carried out the circumcision. Where was Moses? Was he asleep? Did he see Zipporah carry out the circumcision? One has to believe the son cried when this action was carried out and that Moses would have been awoken (if asleep)! The text simply does not tell us. We will have to wait until Heaven to ask him! John Currid offers an interesting alternative suggestion - But what does one do with the word ‘bridegroom’ that is used in so many translations? Why would she call her son by that term? The Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament not only to refer to a bridegroom, but to a son-in-law, a father-in-law and even a mother-in-law. It is used of Jethro in 3:1 and 4:18 to describe his family relationship to Moses. The basic idea of the word stresses that a person has been made part of a family, that he or she has become a blood relative through a covenant relationship. Thus, Moses’ son has been circumcised as a symbol of his entrance into the covenant community/family. Zipporah then takes the blood of the foreskin and places it on the child’s feet. On occasion the term for ‘feet’ can be used of genitalia (Judg. 3:24; 1 Sam. 24:3), and that is perhaps where Zipporah smeared the blood of the circumcision. This act may serve as a precursor or preview of the forthcoming exodus event, in which God passes over the houses of his people who have blood smeared on their doorposts. The blood, in both cases, serves as a protective sign against Yahweh’s wrath. (EPSC-Ex) Got questions suggests "The Bible does not explicitly explain why the Lord desired to kill Moses (ED: AGAIN THAT IS A PRESUMPTION), but it was probably because Moses had not performed the rite of circumcision. Circumcision was an important symbol of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the lack of circumcision would mark a person as cut off from God’s people (Genesis 17:9–14). For Moses to neglect to circumcise his son was an affront to God, as if he were saying that he and his family did not truly belong to God. How could Moses be an effective leader of God’s people if he were in violation of God’s clear command? Zipporah’s words to Moses are puzzling, but the text explains that “she said ‘bridegroom of blood,’ referring to circumcision” (Exodus 4:26). It seems that Zipporah was angry at having to perform the rite, which should have been completed by Moses. Sometime after this incident, Moses sent Zipporah and his two sons back to Midian to stay with Zipporah’s father (see Exodus 18:2–3). Exodus 4:26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood"--because of the circumcision. Exodus 4 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries MOSES' BRUSH WITH DEATH AND A DIVINE DEPARTURE So He let him alone - He is Jehovah. God Himself was preparing to take out Moses, His deliverer. What would "Plan B" for delivering Israel have looked like? Fortunately for Moses we did not need a "Plan B!" Zipporah clearly saved Moses' life. The Hebrew verb raphah means to abandon an objective (in this case to kill Moses) and in the Septuagint is translated with apechomai which means to go away or depart (as in Jas 1:24+). This same verb is used by Pharaoh in the next chapter several times in describing the Hebrew slaves as "lazy, lazy" (Ex 5:8, 17, cf Josh 18:3, Pr 18:9) At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood"--because of the circumcision - "When she said "a bridegroom of blood," she was referring to the circumcision." (NLT) Currin - In support of the idea that this little episode is a paradigm of the later Passover event is the fact that after the son is circumcised and the blood-sign is put on him, the Lord ‘let him alone’. In regard to the tenth plague, God promises: ‘And the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt’ (Exod. 12:13). The Lord simply passes by the Israelite homes that have the blood-sign on them: that is the same as Moses’ son. Zipporah then repeats her statement to her son (‘Then she said’) from verse 25, ‘a covenant-relation of blood’. And the reason is stated directly why the son is now considered part of the blood-covenant: ‘because of the circumcision’. The symbol of the covenant is performed on the son, and so he is considered a member of the covenant. God thus passes over him. The immediately preceding context of verses 22–23 supports this interpretation. There it is dealing with the distinction between the first-born of Yahweh and the first-born of Pharaoh. The physical symbol of those who are in covenant with Yahweh, and are his first-born, is circumcision. Moses’ son now bears the sign of belonging to Yahweh. NET Note on phrase "referring to the circumcision" (Ex 4:26NET) - The Hebrew simply has lammulot, "to the circumcision[s]". The phrase explains that the saying was in reference to the act of circumcision. Some scholars speculate that there was a ritual prior to marriage from which this event and its meaning derived. But it appears rather that if there was some ancient ritual, it would have had to come from this event. The difficulty is that the son is circumcised, not Moses, making the comparative mythological view untenable. Moses had apparently not circumcised Eliezer. Since Moses was taking his family with him, God had to make sure the sign of the covenant was kept. It may be that here Moses sent them all back to Jethro (Ex 18:2) because of the difficulties that lay ahead. Let alone (07503)(raphah) means to sink, to become slack, to relax, to cease (Jdg. 8:3; 2 Sa 24:16; Neh. 6:9; Ps. 37:8), to desist or leave alone (Ex. 4:26; Dt. 9:14; Jdg. 11:37; Job 7:19), to become discouraged, to become disheartened, to become weak, to become feeble, to let drop or let go (Job 27:6; = figuratively; Pr. 4:13 = figuratively; Song 3:4 = literally), to discourage, to leave alone, to let go, to forsake or abandon someone (Deut. 4:31; 31:6, 8; Josh. 1:5; 10:6; Ps. 138:8), to be lazy (Ex. 5:8, 17; Josh. 18:3; Prov. 18:9). Raphah is used 14x with yad = hand (Josh 10:6 = do not abandon = "slack not thy hand", 2 Sa 4:1KJV, 2 Sa 24:16, 1 Chr 21:15, 2 Chr 15:7KJV, Ezra 4:4KJV, a (good) prayer in Neh 6:9, Isa 13:7 = in the Tribulation; Jer 6:24 read Jer 6:24KJV; Jer 38:4 read Jer 38:4KJV, Jer 50:43 = hands hang limp, Ezek 7:17, Ezek 21:7 = hands will be feeble; Zeph 3:16+) Raphah - 50x in 45 verses - abandon*(1), alone*(2), become helpless(1), become*(1), cease(2), collapses(1), courage*(1), discouraged*(2), discouraging*(1), drawn(1), dropped(2), fail(5), fall limp(2), feeble(1), forsake(1), hang limp(2), lazy(3), leave(1), let(2), let her alone(1), let him alone(1), let him go(1), let it go(1), let me alone(1), let us alone(1), let go(1), limp(1), loosens(1), lose courage*(1), lost(1), put off(1), relax(2), slack(2), subsided(1), wait(1). Exod. 4:26; Exod. 5:8; Exod. 5:17; Deut. 4:31; Deut. 9:14; Deut. 31:6; Deut. 31:8; Jos. 1:5; Jos. 10:6; Jos. 18:3; Jdg. 8:3; Jdg. 11:37; Jdg. 19:9; 1 Sam. 11:3; 1 Sam. 15:16; 2 Sam. 4:1; 2 Sam. 24:16; 2 Ki. 4:27; 1 Chr. 21:15; 1 Chr. 28:20; 2 Chr. 15:7; Ezr. 4:4; Neh. 6:3; Neh. 6:9; Job 7:19; Job 12:21; Job 27:6; Ps. 37:8; Ps. 46:10; Ps. 138:8; Prov. 4:13; Prov. 18:9; Prov. 24:10; Cant. 3:4; Isa. 5:24; Isa. 13:7; Jer. 6:24; Jer. 38:4; Jer. 49:24; Jer. 50:43; Ezek. 1:24; Ezek. 1:25; Ezek. 7:17; Ezek. 21:7; Zeph. 3:16 Exodus 4:27 Now the LORD said to Aaron, "Go to meet Moses in the wilderness." So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. Go to - Ex 4:14-16 Ec 4:9 Ac 10:5,6,20 the mountain - Ex 3:1 19:3 20:18 24:15-17 1Ki 19:8 kissed him - Ge 29:11 Exodus 4 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries GOD KEEPS PROMISE OF REUNION WITH AARON Now the LORD said to Aaron, "Go to meet Moses in the wilderness." - Go carries the idea of a command, not a suggestion. In Ex 4:14 God had told (prophecy) Moses his brother Aaron "is coming out to meet you." This was not just a trip across town but was some distance across a barren wilderness. Clearly God in some way had spoken to Aaron and paved the way for him to make this journey to Mount Horeb, the mountain of God. The text does not tell us whether God told Aaron why he was to meet Moses. What are the odds that after 40 years 2 brothers are going to meet at some remote mountain in the desert wilderness at the same time? It follows that this reunion is an example of God's providence, of God behind the scenes but orchestrating the scenes He is behind. And what a coincidence that it is at the same mountain Moses met his best Friend in time and eternity, the LORD Himself! (Ex 3:14-15) And it is the very mountation that will be the confirmatory sign to Moses as the Lord had promised in Ex 3:12+ “Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.” F B