~ Being Real ~

Disciple: Day 29 & 30

I’m late doing Disciple once again. *sigh*

Anyway, despite the familiarity of the story (Moses and the Exodus), there were some strange/random passages that I never really paid attention to before. I don’t really know what to think about the readings as a whole, so I’m going to cheat and just post stuff from an online commentary about the “strange/random” passages: Exodus 4:24-26 and 6:13-27.

There is a strange interlude in vs. 24-26. On the way to Egypt, while the family spent the night in an inn, somebody became violently sick to the point of death. Although the text does not mention the name, it is generally understood that it was Moses’ life that was in danger. Because of the lack of details given, it is hard to fill in the blanks. Evidently, there had been some difference of opinion between Moses and his wife regarding the circumcision of their sons. We gather from this incident that circumcision was being practiced among the Israelites in Egypt, but that the Midianites did not practice it. The Pulpit Commentary supposes that it was Moses’ second son, Eliezer, who had not been circumcised and that he was born shortly before the departure of the family for Egypt. Since only one child is mentioned, it is logical to suppose that the child in question was the last born. Moses must have prevailed upon his wife to have the circumcision done on Gershom, but had not overruled his wife’s objection regarding Eliezer. The commentary also suggests that Eliezer had been born eight days before this incident took place, since, according to Genesis, that was the day when circumcision was supposed to take place.⁹³ It is true that Eliezer’s birth is not mentioned in chapter 2. But omissions do not constitute proof. It is obvious from Zipporah’s comment that she had objected to the rite, probably because she could not stand that sight of the blood of her little baby. And after the circumcision she called Moses a “bridegroom of blood.”

Adam Clarke’s explanation is that it was the child’s life that was in danger, whether Gershom or Eliezer, is not clear. He also supposes that Zipporah, after this incident decided to take her children and go home. He refers to ch. 18:1-6. The text is too condensed to argue one way or the other. It seems to me that, if it was the son’s life that was at stake, Moses would have performed the circumcision himself. The impression we get is that Moses had been disobedient to God’s command and that, before going down to Egypt, he had to put his house in order.

One could wish for more details in the story. It seems that there are some precious lessons hidden in the text. The text may have been corrupted in the transmission. These verses seem to be saying to us that one must obey in the smaller issues, before he obeys in the larger ones. It also seems to say that when a wife must choose between her husband and her child, she should choose her husband. It also seems to teach us that in God’s economy the man should be the head of the home.

---

⁹³ See Gen 17:10-12



The Genealogy of Moses and Aaron vs. 13-27

Obviously the verses 13-27 and 28-30 are an interruption of the actual narrative. The Pulpit Commentary supposes that, although Moses might have prepared the genealogy, the verses were inserted in the book at a later date by the final compiler. The intent is obvious: later generations should have a clear understanding of the historical links, especially of the genealogical line of the leaders who were the main instruments in bringing the people out of Egypt to Canaan.

This is not a complete genealogy of all the sons of Jacob and their offspring. The list starts with Reuben and Simeon and stops at Levi. Neither the rest of [Leah]’s children, nor any of the other brothers are mentioned. Why Reuben and Simeon are mentioned at all is not clear. The obvious intent is to distinguish the family of Levi.

The details of the lists are of very little consequence for our study. The most revealing fact is that the name of Moses’ father is mentioned in vs. 20. The Pulpit Commentary says here: “That this Amram is the ‘man of the house of Levi’ mentioned in ch. ii.1, cannot be doubted; but it is scarcely possible that he should be the same Amram of ver. 18, the actual son of Kohath and contemporary of Joseph. He is probably a descendant of the sixth or seventh generation, who bore the same name, and was the head of the Amramite house. That house, at the time of the Exodus, numbered above two thousand males (Num. iii.27,28).”

Commentary by Rev. John Schultz, Source: http://www.bible-commentaries.com