The mysterious account of Moses’ brush with death in Exodus 4:24 offers a wealth of theological and psychological insights. These narratives, encompassing Moses’ persistent doubts about his mission, the provision of divine signs, and his near-death experience, illustrate his transformation from a hesitant shepherd into a divinely appointed leader. It underscores themes of leadership, divine guidance, and the dynamic relationship between human frailty and divine empowerment. These episodes emphasize the weight of Moses’ mission, the significance of covenantal obligations, and the profound ways G-d shapes His chosen messengers.
G-d’s Instructions to Moses: The Epic Context of the Mission
G-d’s communication to Moses as he prepares to return to Egypt (Exodus 4:21–23) offers a sobering summary of the mission ahead. This moment serves as both a dramatic forewarning and a theological cornerstone of Judaism, blending divine sovereignty, human agency, and the inevitable escalation of conflict with Pharaoh. However, the journey to this point reveals a complex negotiation between Moses and G-d, shaped by Moses’ deep reluctance to accept the Job.
When first called at the burning bush (Exodus 3:2), Moses presents a series of excuses to avoid the role he is being asked to fulfill. Each excuse not only highlights his human frailty but also serves as an opportunity for G-d to reaffirm divine sovereignty and provide reassurance.
1. “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?” (Exodus 3:11)
Moses’ initial response is rooted in humility and insecurity. He questions his worthiness and ability to confront Pharaoh or lead the Israelites. G-d responds with the assurance of divine presence: “I will be with you,” signaling that Moses’ abilities are secondary to the power of G-d’s guidance.
2. “What if they ask Your name? What should I say?” (Exodus 3:13)
Moses anticipates skepticism from the Israelites and fears he lacks the authority to convince them. G-d reveals the divine name, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (“אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה” “I Am Who I Am”), underscoring G-d’s eternal and unchanging nature. This name becomes a theological anchor for Moses’ mission.
3. “What if they do not believe me or listen to me?” (Exodus 4:1)
Moses doubts his ability to gain the Israelites’ trust. In response, G-d equips him with signs to validate his divine mandate: the transformation of the staff into a serpent, the leprous hand, and the ability to turn water into blood. These miraculous tools emphasize that the mission’s success does not depend solely on Moses but on G-d’s Intervention.
4. “I am slow of speech and tongue.” (Exodus 4:10)
Moses points to his lack of eloquence, suggesting he is ill-suited to be a spokesperson. G-d counters this by reminding Moses that He gives the ability to speak, hear, and see, offering yet another assurance of divine provision. Nevertheless, G-d concedes slightly, appointing Aaron, Moses’ brother, as a spokesperson to accompany and support him.
5. “Please send someone else.” (Exodus 4:13)
In a final attempt to evade the mission, Moses pleads for G-d to choose someone else. At this point, G-d’s response shifts in tone as divine patience gives way to anger. Yet, even now, G-d demonstrates understanding, reaffirming Aaron’s role as a partner in the mission.
Through this ongoing bargaining, G-d’s persistence in choosing Moses becomes increasingly significant. The reasons are multifaceted:
- Moses’ unique position: As someone raised in Pharaoh’s court yet connected to the suffering of the Israelites, Moses occupies a liminal space that makes him uniquely suited to bridge the gap between the oppressor and the oppressed.
- Moses’ humility: Ironically, Moses’ self-doubt and reluctance may be precisely why he was chosen. His humility ensures that he will not act out of personal Napoleonic ambition but rely on G-d’s guidance and power.
- Divine sovereignty: Ultimately, G-d’s choice reflects the theological principle that divine will transcends human limitations. By choosing someone who is or sees himself as inadequate, G-d demonstrates that success lies not in human strength but in divine purpose.
The tools G-d provides to Moses—the rod, the ability to summon plagues, and the authority to confront and ultimately punish Pharaoh—are not just practical instruments but symbols of G-d’s ultimate control over the mission’s outcome. Moreover, G-d’s forewarning of Pharaoh’s hardened heart reinforces the inevitability of violent resistance and the escalating conflict.
This prologue to the story of the Exodus sets the stage for the drama and highlights the interplay between divine sovereignty and human agency. Despite his initial reluctance, Moses becomes the harbinger of liberation, chosen not for his Philosopher-King-like abilities but for his willingness to serve as an instrument of G-d’s will. Through Moses, G-d demonstrates that even the most flawed and insignificant individuals can become vessels for profound transformation. The following commentary will touch on some of the points that comprise this enigmatic story.
Mission Complexity
Moses’ mission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt is fraught with daunting challenges that extend beyond Pharaoh’s resistance. These complexities highlight his vulnerability and likely amplify his doubts about the mission’s feasibility.
A Fugitive from the Law
Moses’ return to Egypt comes with significant personal risk. Decades earlier, Moses killed an Egyptian in defense of a Hebrew slave and fled to Midian to escape Pharaoh’s wrath (Exodus 2:11–15). His return to Egypt means confronting a past crime that marked him as a fugitive from the law:
- The Threat of Arrest: Despite the passage of time, Moses likely wonders if he is still a wanted man, especially as he reenters a society where Pharaoh’s power remains absolute and risks encountering people who remember his offense.
- Guilt and Self-Doubt: The memory of the killing may have left Moses questioning his worthiness to lead, adding another layer to his hesitation. This internal struggle is not unique to Moses; it reflects the experiences of other biblical figures who grappled with guilt and feelings of inadequacy in the face of their divine calling. One such example is King David. His profound remorse after his sin with Bathsheba and the subsequent killing of Uriah the Hittite is powerfully conveyed in Psalm 51. In this heartfelt prayer, David pleads with G-d for mercy and spiritual renewal: “Create in me a pure heart, O G-d, and renew a steadfast spirit within me” (Psalm 51:12). Like Moses, David wrestled with the weight of his past actions while striving to fulfill his role as a leader chosen by G-d.
No Tangible Resources
Moses was called to confront one of the most powerful empires of the ancient world, yet he had no tangible resources to aid him. This parallels Gideon’s story, where G-d intentionally reduces Gideon’s army to demonstrate that victory comes from divine power, not human strength (Judges 7:2–7).
- No Army: Unlike other leaders, Moses did not command a force capable of resisting Egypt’s military might. He must rely entirely on divine intervention to rapidly liberate hundreds of thousands of enslaved people.
- No Infrastructure or Support: Leading the Israelites—a massive, enslaved population—requires organizational skill, logistical planning, housing, food, and fuel, none of which Moses possesses.
- No Autonomy: G-d’s appointment of Aaron as Moses’ spokesperson (Exodus 4:14–16) highlights both divine accommodation and Moses’ reliance on external support. It underscores his acknowledgment that he cannot carry this mission alone.
- No Leadership Support: Unlike later leaders who had established alliances or networks, Moses began his mission without the backing of a political or social coalition. The elders of Israel are skeptical, and the enslaved Israelites themselves are initially resistant and weary from years of oppression and broken promises.
- No Clan or Tribal Authority: Leadership in the ancient world often relied on strong familial or tribal support, but Moses lacked the powerful backing of a large or influential clan. Though descended from Levi, a priestly tribe, he has spent decades in exile, severed from those connections.
- No Administrative Structure: Moses does not have the governance to mobilize or organize the people. There is no bureaucracy, communication network, or logistical apparatus to help implement his mission.
- No Police Force or Militia: Without any form of enforcement or protection, Moses has no means to physically defend himself or the Israelites from Pharaoh’s reprisal or ensure their safety during their eventual departure.
- No Resources: Unlike Pharaoh, who commands the vast resources of Egypt, Moses begins with nothing but the staff in his hand and the signs G-d has granted him. The mission relies entirely on divine provision and faith.
- No Transportation: The logistics of moving an entire population out of Egypt, across harsh terrain, and toward an unknown destination seem insurmountable without resources like carts, animals, or even a clear plan.
These deficits amplify Moses’ sense of inadequacy. Yet, they also underscore the narrative’s theological point: success depends not on human strength, resources, or authority but on G-d’s sovereignty and intervention. Moses’ shortcomings, his reliance on Aaron, and his lack of worldly advantages set the stage for G-d’s power to be revealed. By choosing a leader who lacks every conventional qualification—eloquence, support, resources—G-d demonstrates that liberation is not the result of human achievement but divine will. This paradoxical choice not only humbles Moses but also assures the Israelites (and later readers) that their deliverance is the work of G-d alone.
The Weight of a New Life and Family
Before his calling, Moses had established a peaceful and stable life in Midian, far removed from the turmoil of Egypt and the struggles of his people. His life as a shepherd afforded him comfort and predictability, making G-d’s call to return to Egypt not only a disruption but a profound personal sacrifice:
- An infant Child: Moses was married to Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro (יִתְרוֹ), also known as Reuel (רְעוּאֵל) and Hobab (חֹבָב), a Midianite priest. Together, they had two sons: Gershom (גֵּרְשֹׁם) and Eliezer (אֱלִיעֶזֶר), who was still an infant. His role as a husband and father gave him a sense of identity and purpose during his time in Midian. However, accepting G-d’s mission to return to Egypt required Moses to leave behind the safety and stability of his family, placing them in potential jeopardy. This internal conflict mirrors the experiences of other prophets, such as Hosea, whose family life was deeply intertwined with their divine calling.
Hosea 1:2-3: “When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, ‘Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the LORD.’ So he married Gomer, daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.”
- A Settled Routine: After fleeing Egypt as a fugitive, Moses likely saw his life in Midian as a permanent refuge. His work as a shepherd for Jethro was modest but fulfilling, allowing him to live without fear of Pharaoh’s pursuit or the burdens of leadership. G-d’s call to return to Egypt shattered this sense of stability, requiring Moses to trade his quiet life for one of uncertainty and danger.
- A Midianite Identity: Having lived for four decades among the Midianites, Moses was likely seen as one of their own. This prolonged period in exile distanced him from the Israelites culturally and emotionally. His connection to his people had grown tenuous, making him feel like an outsider to the group he was called to lead.
- Comfortable Routine: Life as a shepherd, though physically demanding, provides a consistent and predictable rhythm. The mission G-d presented to Moses was not just a spiritual challenge but also a logistical upheaval, requiring him to abandon his day-to-day responsibilities and embrace a path fraught with conflict and uncertainty.
- A Shepherd, Not a General: Moses is a man of the wilderness, not a leader of armies or a master strategist. He has no military training and no experience managing large groups of people. His quiet and pastoral life in Midian has not prepared him for the responsibilities or leadership of a national liberation movement.
The Practical Impossibility of the Exodus
As the enormity of his mission becomes clear, Moses begins to see himself as a critical figure in a massive divine plan:
- Theological War: The conflict between G-d and Pharaoh is not merely about Moses or Israel but is a cosmic demonstration of G-d’s sovereignty over human power structures. Moses feels insignificant in this massive divine confrontation.
- Israel’s Redemption: Israel’s liberation is not just a local event but a transformation with global implications. As G-d states, “That My name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (Exodus 9:16).
- The Most Sophisticated Empire: Egypt is not a tiny kingdom but the dominant superpower of its time, renowned for its advances, military strength, and centralized bureaucracy. Pharaoh is not merely a king; he is regarded as a god by his people, wielding absolute authority. To challenge Egypt is to challenge the world’s most powerful empire, a feat that seems impossible from Moses’ perspective.
- An Economy Built on Slavery: The enslavement of the Israelites is not incidental to Egypt’s economy—it is foundational. Slave labor fuels agriculture, construction, and significant state projects like the building of temples and monuments. Releasing such a massive workforce would destabilize Egypt’s economy and undermine Pharaoh’s authority. It is unlikely that even in the best-case scenario, Pharaoh would willingly allow the Israelites to leave, as doing so would threaten the very fabric of Egyptian society.
- Where Would They Go?: Even if Pharaoh were to release the Israelites, the practical challenges of leading hundreds of thousands of people out of Egypt are staggering. There are no established logistical plans for such a migration. Moses would guide a massive, vulnerable population with limited resources through harsh and unforgiving terrain.
- The Inhospitable Desert: The wilderness surrounding Egypt is barren, with little water, food, or shelter. Sustaining such a large population in this environment seems unthinkable, especially without an army or resources to support them. The people would face starvation, thirst, and the constant threat of attack from hostile groups.
- Canaan is Occupied: The Promised Land is not an empty frontier waiting to be claimed. It is a region filled with fortified city-states, each with its armies and resources. The idea of leading a disorganized group of former slaves into a land of well-established powers seems not only dangerous but outright impossible. Moses is keenly aware that the journey does not end with leaving Egypt; it begins an entirely new set of challenges.
- A Clash of Empires and Theologies: The conflict is not just between Moses and Pharaoh but between G-d and the gods of Egypt. Pharaoh’s refusal to release the Israelites is not just political; it is theological. Pharaoh represents a system of human power that claims divine legitimacy, and G-d’s plan for liberation is a direct challenge to that system. Moses may feel like a small and insignificant figure in this vast cosmic confrontation, merely a vessel for a divine purpose.
- The Redemption of Israel: Israel’s liberation is not an isolated act but one with profound global implications. As
G-d declares, “that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (Exodus 9:16). The Exodus demonstrates G-d’s sovereignty over all nations, proving that no human power can stand against divine will. Moses is not only leading the people but also participating in a transformative event that will echo across history.
G-d’s Declaration: The Complication of Hardening Pharaoh’s Heart
The statement “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 4:21) has long been a theological debate, particularly regarding divine sovereignty and human free will. Several key points emerge from this declaration:
1. Divine Sovereignty and Free Will: While the text attributes Pharaoh’s hardened heart to G-d, it does not negate Pharaoh’s agency. The interplay between G-d’s actions and Pharaoh’s choices is evident in the alternating descriptions: “Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15) and “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 9:12). This duality suggests that Pharaoh’s defiance was both a result of his pride and an instrument of G-d’s plan to reveal His power.
Similarly, Sihon, king of Heshbon, is said to have had G-d harden his heart to fulfill His purpose (Deuteronomy 2:30).
2. Justice and Judgment: Pharaoh’s judgment is tied to his earlier sins, including enslaving the Israelites and ordering the death of their male children (Exodus 1:15–16). G-d’s hardening of his heart ensures that he faces the full consequences of his actions, culminating in the death of Egypt’s firstborn (Exodus 11:4–6).
3. Revealing G-d’s Power: The hardening magnifies the display of G-d’s power through the plagues. As G-d states, “That My name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (Exodus 9:16). This demonstrates that the Exodus is not just a liberation event but a revelation of G-d’s sovereignty over human powers.
Wrestling with Reality
G-d’s commandment highlights the sheer absurdity of Moses’ mission from a rational and pragmatic standpoint, emphasizing its almost laughable improbability. Moses’ persistent doubts likely include more profound, existential questions about the mission’s authenticity:
1. Questioning His Sanity: The surreal nature of the burning bush encounter and G-d’s direct communication might lead Moses to wonder if he is experiencing a psychological episode rather than a divine calling. This internal struggle mirrors the doubts of Jeremiah, who lamented the overwhelming nature of his mission (Jeremiah 20:7–9).
2. The Magnitude of the Mission: The sheer improbability of freeing an enslaved population from the most powerful empire of the time might seem delusional. Moses likely wrestled with whether he could trust his perception of reality.
3. The Person Chosen: Moses, a solitary shepherd, is tasked with confronting the most powerful empire of the time. He has no army, wealth, political influence, or evident leadership. If this were pitched as a strategic plan in any context today, it would be outright dismissed as nonsensical.
4. The Scope of the Demand: Moses is instructed to demand not just a small concession but the liberation of an entire enslaved workforce. This request would effectively destroy Egypt’s economy. This is akin to asking a superpower to dismantle the cornerstone of its industrial and social framework willingly.
5. The Communication Channel: The mission is based on the authority of a deity who is unseen and unproven to many and communicates solely with Moses. In a world dominated by polytheistic, idol-based worship, this premise directly challenges the cultural and theological norms of Egypt and the surrounding nations. How could such a radical and unverified message even gain a hearing, let alone acceptance?
6. The Dual Objective: The task doesn’t stop at liberating a people but extends to establishing the sovereignty of this invisible G-d on a global scale. Such an audacious aim defies every practical measure of feasibility. How could a marginal, enslaved group inspire a seismic religious and cultural shift across nations?
7. Faith Over Logic: The narrative relies on an unshakable faith that defies logic and evidence. Dismantling visible power structures with faith in the unseen seems absurdly idealistic and impractical.
Physical and Psychological Afflictions
In ancient times, illness and physical affliction were often interpreted as signs of divine displeasure or judgment. The narrative’s description of G-d seeking to kill Moses could be understood as a sudden onset of a severe physical ailment, such as a fever, that left Moses incapacitated and near death. This aligns with the Hebrew tradition of attributing significant life events to direct divine intervention.
- Fever as a Symbol of Divine Judgment: In the Bible, fever is frequently associated with divine punishment or warning. For instance, Deuteronomy 28:22 lists fever as one of the curses for disobedience to G-d’s covenant. In Moses’ case, the affliction could symbolize the seriousness of neglecting the covenantal obligation of circumcision.
- Debilitation and Vulnerability: If Moses had been struck with a debilitating illness, it would have rendered him physically and mentally vulnerable, further heightening the psychological weight of his mission.
- Nightmares and Hallucinations: Wrestling with Divine Reality: In addition to physical affliction, Moses may have experienced vivid nightmares or hallucinations during this encounter, reflecting the psychological toll of his divine calling. Such experiences are common among individuals grappling with profound fear, guilt, or overwhelming responsibilities.
Manifestations of Inner Conflict
The intensity of Moses’ calling—confronting Pharaoh, leading an enslaved people, and trusting in G-d’s plan—could have triggered a state of psychological crisis and nervous breakdown; hallucinations, whether auditory or visual, might reflect Moses’ inner turmoil as he reconciled his doubts, fears, and the gravity of his task. Biblical precedents exist for visions and divine encounters as transformative moments. For instance, Jacob wrestled with an angel (Genesis 32:24–30) in what may have been a physical or visionary struggle. Similarly, Isaiah’s vision of G-d’s throne room (Isaiah 6:1–8) highlights the overwhelming nature of divine encounters.
G-d Literally Puts the Fear of God Into Moses
The symbolic and spiritual weight of Moses’ mission likely played out in his subconscious through dreams. Nightmares of failure, divine wrath, or personal unworthiness could have mirrored his internal struggles. This is consistent with Job’s description of terrifying visions during sleepless nights:
Job 7:14: “Even then, you frighten me with dreams and terrify me with visions.”
Moses’ failure to circumcise his son—an act critical to the Abrahamic covenant—may have been a source of guilt that contributed to his near-death experience. The tension between his role as a father, husband, and prophet would have compounded these fears.
The correlation between the angel opposing Balaam and Moses’s encounter with an angel after being set on his mission is a fascinating comparison. Both narratives reflect divine intervention to underscore the gravity of their respective missions and hold the individuals accountable for their responsibilities.
A Harse Reminder of Accountability
Moses’ near-death experience after being sent off on the mission to Egypt resembles the story of Balaam’s angelic confrontation. Scholars, including Moshe Casuto, have noted how both encounters highlight divine intervention to underscore the seriousness of their respective tasks. Moses and Balaam were given pre-amptive warnings for their actions, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling their responsibilities with unwavering commitment.
1. The Angel and Balaam: In Numbers 22:20, Balaam, a non-Israelite prophet, sets out on a mission commissioned by Balak, the king of Moab, to curse Israel. Along the way, an angel of the LORD obstructs his path, standing as a warning against pursuing a course contrary to G-d’s will. Despite Balaam’s prophetic status, the angel serves as a rebuke, revealing his susceptibility to grift and personal ambition and a lack of moral resolve. The angel’s role highlights divine oversight, ensuring Balaam’s actions align with G-d’s purpose.
2. The Angel and Moses: The text describes an incident where Moses falls deathly ill on his way to Egypt. The incident likely centers on Moses’ failure to circumcise his infant son Eliezer, a critical covenantal obligation. His wife Zipporah intervenes by circumcising their son, which appeases G-d and enables Moses to recover and continue his mission. This episode highlights the seriousness of covenantal faithfulness, especially for those entrusted with divine missions.
Correlation of Events and Significance
Both narratives share thematic parallels, including:
- Divine Accountability: Balaam and Moses are reminded of the weight of their responsibilities. Balaam is warned not to deviate from G-d’s command, while Moses is chastised for neglecting a foundational covenantal act.
- Intervention as a Warning: In both cases, the angel acts as a divine emissary to correct the individual’s trajectory, ensuring alignment with G-d’s will.
- Moral and Covenant Obligations: Both stories emphasize the importance of moral and covenantal adherence. Balaam’s greed and Moses’ negligence highlight human frailty, requiring a painful divine correction.
- The symbolism of the Journey: In both narratives, the journey motif (riding on a donkey) symbolizes the spiritual and moral challenges leaders face as they carry out divine missions.
- A Prophetic Donkey: The episode of Bilam and his donkey highlights G-d’s use of irony, using an unexpected medium—a speaking donkey—to humble the arrogant prophet. Despite Bilam’s claim to prophetic insight, he is outdone by an animal that perceives the divine angel he cannot see. The donkey’s speech serves as a rebuke and a reminder that wisdom and communication with G-d are not self-earned but divinely granted. This underscores G-d’s ability to use any means, even seemingly a donkey, to deliver profound lessons about humility, loyalty, and the limits of human pride.
These parallels reinforce the biblical theme of divine sovereignty and the high standards required of those chosen for prophetic roles.
Theological and Psychological Implications of the Encounter
Moses’ near-death experience underscores the seriousness of covenantal obligations and G-d’s expectations for His chosen servant. However, it also highlights the profound psychological and emotional impact of being called to such a monumental mission.
1. The Weight of Divine Accountability: G-d’s sudden threat to Moses’ life is a stark reminder of the absolute seriousness of divine commandments. Moses’ neglect of circumcision—symbolizing the covenant between G-d and His people—jeopardized his credibility as a leader. This reinforces the idea that leaders must embody the values they are called to teach.
2. Psychological Toll of Leadership: Leadership often requires significant personal sacrifices, including doubt, fear, and self-examination. Moses, like other prophets, faced the daunting task of balancing human frailty with divine empowerment. His experience echoes Elijah’s despair after his confrontation with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 19:4), where he sought death under the weight of his mission.
3. A Transformative Encounter: The encounter may have been as much about Moses’ internal transformation as divine judgment. By bringing Moses to the brink of death, G-d exposed him to the full gravity of his mission, forcing him to confront his fears and align himself fully with G-d’s plan.
The Restorative Power of Obedience and the Covenant Reestablished
Zipporah’s swift action in circumcising their son and touching Moses with the foreskin (Exodus 4:25) is a pivotal moment that goes beyond averting divine judgment. Her act serves as a profound reaffirmation of the covenant between G-d and Abraham, and it binds Moses more deeply to his divine mission. In this moment, Zipporah not only rescues Moses from immediate peril but also secures his commitment to fulfilling his divine role. By circumcision, Zipporah fulfills the neglected covenantal obligation, averting divine wrath and reestablishing the broken bond between G-d and Moses. The act of circumcision harks back to the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17:10–14, where G-d declares circumcision as the enduring sign of the covenant between Himself and Abraham’s descendants.
- A Physical and Spiritual Restoration: The blood from the circumcision serves as a tangible and symbolic medium through which the covenant is renewed. By touching Moses with the foreskin, Zipporah symbolically binds Moses to the covenant and G-d’s mission. This act is not merely about fulfilling a ritual but about re-signing the “contract” between G-d and Moses, with Zipporah acting as Moses’ proxy.
- Signing on the Dotted Line: In essence, Zipporah’s action symbolizes a contractual agreement between Moses and G-d, with the blood serving as the “ink” that seals Moses’ commitment to his mission. By stepping into this role, Zipporah, acting under the “power of attorney,” ensures Moses fulfilled his contract and calling, aligning him with G-d’s purposes.
The Binding Nature of the Covenant and Mission Fulfillment
The Abrahamic covenant promised land, descendants, and blessing, but it also demanded adherence to its stipulations, with circumcision as the outward sign. Moses, tasked with liberating the people bound by this covenant, could not lead them while neglecting its requirements. Zipporah’s intervention thus secures not only Moses’ physical survival but also his spiritual legitimacy as a covenantal representative of G-d.
Blood as a Guarantee
Blood, central to many covenantal rituals in the Bible, acts as a binding agent between the divine and human. This is seen in:
- The Passover (Exodus 12:13): Blood on the doorposts protects the Israelites from the angel of death.
- The Sinai Covenant (Exodus 24:8): Moses sprinkles blood on the people, symbolizing their binding agreement with G-d.
- The Sacrificial System (Leviticus 17:11): Blood serves as atonement for sin and a means of reconciliation with G-d.
Support in Moments of Crisis
Zipporah’s decisive action underscores the importance of companionship and support during critical moments. Her intervention mirrors other examples in Scripture where individuals step in to prevent grave errors or ensure divine plans are fulfilled:
- Abigail’s intervention (1 Samuel 25:23–31): Abigail prevents David from committing unnecessary bloodshed, demonstrating wisdom and discernment in a crisis.
- Esther’s Boldness (Esther 4:14–16): Esther risks her life to intercede for her people, embodying courage and commitment in the face of danger.
In both examples, as with Zipporah, the willingness to act decisively and courageously in a pivotal moment ensures the fulfillment of the divine plan.
Zipporah’s Role as a Proxy and Moses’ Alignment with the Mission
Zipporah’s intervention reorients Moses, aligning him with the gravity of his mission. In the dramatic episode where she circumcises their son and touches Moses with the blood (Exodus 4:24-26), Zipporah ensures the covenant is renewed, mediating between Moses and G-d. Her decisive actions secure Moses’ physical survival and prepare him spiritually for the immense task ahead. Through her act, Moses is no longer a reluctant participant but becomes fully bound to the divine project of delivering the Israelites from Egypt.
Parallels in Symbolism and Action:
1. Blood and Covenant:
- Zipporah’s act of circumcision, with the blood as a sign of covenant renewal, mirrors Moses’ later actions in Egypt, notably the first plague where he turns the Nile’s water into blood (Exodus 7:17). Both acts involve the pouring or smearing of blood as a powerful symbol of divine intervention, covenant, and judgment.
- Just as Zipporah’s action spares Moses from divine wrath, the blood of the Passover lamb will later spare the Israelites from the final plague (Exodus 12:13). Both events emphasize the protective and redemptive power of blood within the covenant relationship.
2. Mediation Between G-d and Humanity:
- Zipporah acts as a mediator, stepping in to avert divine judgment on Moses. This anticipates Moses’ later role as the ultimate mediator between G-d and Israel, interceding for the people after their sins, such as the golden calf incident (Exodus 32:11-14).
- Zipporah and Moses embody the dual role of standing between divine sovereignty and human frailty to ensure the covenant continues.
3. Preparation and Alignment:
- Zipporah’s circumcision marks a turning point, preparing Moses to embrace his divine mission fully. Similarly, the plagues in Egypt, beginning with the turning of the Nile to blood, prepared Pharaoh and the Egyptians to recognize G-d’s sovereignty and allow the Israelites to leave. Both narratives focus on preparation and alignment with divine will.
4. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility:
- Zipporah’s swift action exemplifies the balance between G-d’s sovereignty and human agency. Her role in this episode underscores the idea that divine plans often depend on human obedience and initiative. This is echoed in Moses’ later actions, where he must take active steps (stretching out his staff, following G-d’s instructions) to enact divine miracles.
5. Themes of Leadership and Support:
- Moses’ leadership and survival hinge not solely on his relationship with G-d but also on the support and wisdom of those around him, particularly Zipporah. Her intervention reflects the broader biblical theme that leadership is relational, not solitary, and often requires the partnership of others.
The Interplay of Divine Calling and Human Relationships
This episode underscores the relational dynamics of leadership and divine calling. Moses’ survival and success depend on the support, insight, and actions of his wife, Zipporah, whose wisdom complements his divine commission. Her actions serve as a reminder that G-d’s purposes are fulfilled through a partnership between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Moreover, the parallels between Moses’ symbolic actions in Egypt and Zipporah’s decisive intervention weave a narrative thread that connects personal covenant renewal to national liberation, showcasing the consistency of G-d’s redemptive plans for Israel.
The episode of G-d seeking to kill Moses serves as a reminder that divine missions demand complete dedication, often requiring individuals to confront their deepest fears and vulnerabilities. Whether through physical or mental affliction, Moses’ encounter highlights the psychological toll of aligning with divine will. Yet, through this process, Moses emerges as a transformed leader, strengthened by divine assurance and the renewed commitment to G-d’s covenant with Israel.
References and Sources
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus.
Umberto Cassuto. The Documentary Hypothesis: and the Composition of the Pentateuch Eight Lectures
Cassuto on Exodus 3:14:1-2
The first response that God gives to Moses (here too, of course, it is written, “And God said to Moses” using the name Elohim) is this: Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (“I Am That I Am”). Certainly, one should not seek in these words a philosophical or theological concept as perceived in later periods, but rather a very simple idea, connected to the word Ehyeh already spoken to Moses in verse 12: “For I will be with you.” This phrase serves as an explanation of the divine name YHWH, derived from the verb hayah (“to be”). Regardless of the etymology of the name (readers can find various proposals for this etymology in my article “Divine Names” in the Biblical Encyclopedia, under the entry Elohim), the Torah sees it as derived from the verb hayah-hoveh (“was—is”).
The explanation provided here is akin to the present tense. The verb form that we now call “future tense” could, in ancient Hebrew, indicate any tense—past, present, or future—and, in some usages, is somewhat similar to the “present tense” of modern Hebrew. The name by which people refer to the God of Israel, YHWH, is a third-person “future tense,” the explanation given here in the text is akin to “He will be.” Therefore, when the explanation is given in God’s own words, it is stated in the first person (see Rashbam on this): “Ehyeh.” The meaning is: I am the one who is present with my creations (compare Berakhot 9b) in their time of trouble and distress, as I have already told you, “For I will be with you” (v. 12), to help and save them. And I am the one who is—the one who always is, eternally. Just as I am present with you, so I am present with all the people of Israel in bondage and with all who need my help, both now and in the future.
This explanation also encompasses the idea of fulfilling promises: I am the one who always is, eternally the same, and therefore faithful to my word and fulfilling my promises (compare Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on Exodus 6:2). When the Israelites recognized, after their exodus from Egypt and their salvation from Pharaoh’s pursuing army, that the Lord indeed was with them and fulfilled His promises, they proclaimed in the Song at the Sea (15:3): “The Lord is His name,” meaning that His name fits Him, and He fits His name; His actions align with His name.
The response to Moses consists only of these words: Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, and no more. What is written in the second part of verse 14, introduced by “And He said” for the second time, should be understood in accordance with what I have explained several times in the Book of Genesis regarding the duplication of Vayomer–Vayomer (“And He said—and He said”): the first Vayomer presents the words that were spoken, while the second Vayomer explains the inner intention of those words. In response to Moses’ question, “What shall I say to them if they ask me the name of the one who sent me?” the answer is given: Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. The intention of this response is: “Thus shall you say to the Israelites: Ehyeh [Asher Ehyeh] has sent me to you,” meaning: the one who sent me to you is the God who refers to Himself as Ehyeh.
Cassuto on Exodus 3:15:1-2
The second response, introduced with the phrase “And God said further to Moses” (the word “further” indicates an additional speech), is formulated in an exalted and somewhat poetic style. It begins with the solemn preamble, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites,” which has an expanded rhythm compared to the previous verse (using el instead of le-), aligning with the style of the poetic passages found later in Exodus 20:22 and beyond. Following this introduction, the message given to Moses to deliver to the Israelites unfolds: first, the distinctive divine name, YHWH, is presented as if standing alone before the list of titles that separate it from the verb “has sent me.” Immediately after, these titles are provided, beginning with the general term “The God of your ancestors,” followed by three specific designations—“The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”—which confirm and emphasize the idea of continuity and permanence. After this solemn declaration of the divine name and titles comes the statement of mission: “has sent me to you.” This emphasizes that God Himself, in all His glory, has sent Moses to them. Although they may have forgotten His name, He has not forgotten them. He remembers His covenant with their ancestors and has sent Moses to fulfill it.
The response concludes with a majestic closing statement, crafted in a distinctly poetic structure, typical of ancient Eastern literature: “This is My name forever, and this is My memorial from generation to generation.” The parallelism between “name” and “memorial” is also found in Psalms 30:5 and Job 18:17 (cf. Isaiah 26:8), while the parallelism between “forever” and “from generation to generation” is a common feature in ancient Canaanite poetry, as evidenced by the Ugaritic texts. This poetic construction passed into Hebrew literature, appearing no fewer than 28 times in the Bible. The enduring legacy of this verse within Israel is evident in passages based on it, such as Hosea 12:6: “The Lord, the God of hosts, the Lord is His memorial”; Psalm 102:13: “But You, O Lord, are enthroned forever; Your memorial endures to all generations”; and Psalm 135:13: “Your name, O Lord, endures forever, Your memorial, O Lord, throughout all generations.” This poetic verse serves as a fitting conclusion to the divine message and a dignified closing to the paragraph.
Cassuto’s interpretation of this passage, which provides a simple and clear explanation of its details, refutes the prevailing scholarly opinion of his time. Many modern scholars, based on a superficial and mechanical reading of the texts, argue that this section comes from a specific source, suggesting that the name YHWH was unknown to the patriarchs and was revealed for the first time to Moses. While this is not the place for a detailed refutation (a comprehensive discussion can be found in Cassuto’s Italian book La Questione della Genesi, pp. 82–92), one key point suffices: these very verses, often cited as proof of an Elohist source, explicitly state (v. 15): “The Lord, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”, and later (v. 16): “The Lord, the God of your ancestors.” To dismiss this conclusive evidence, proponents of the aforementioned theory often claim that these verses were altered or supplemented by later editors. Cassuto dismisses such claims as desperate and arbitrary, introducing additional difficulties and relying on a method that selectively dismisses inconvenient evidence. By this arbitrary approach, any scholar could adopt any theory they wished, even if it contradicts the clear testimony of the biblical text.
Cassuto on: The Encounter at the Inn (Exodus 4:24–26)
This paragraph has served as a foundational point for various interpretations, homilies, and perspectives regarding ancient conceptions of divinity in Israel. We must attempt to explain it according to its plain meaning. Indeed, there is much in this passage that is peculiar and obscure. It is strange that just as Moses sets out to fulfill the mission entrusted to him by God, God Himself seeks to kill him. Even more surprising is the lack of any explicit hint in the text regarding the reason for this occurrence. Additionally, some expressions, such as “bridegroom of blood” or “circumcision,” are ambiguous in their meaning.
Nevertheless, the three elements are clear and may help us understand the passage. The first is the similarity between this narrative and the story of Balaam, in which the angel of the Lord stands as an adversary in his path after God has already granted him permission to proceed. The angel’s appearance can only be understood as a final warning to Balaam during his journey, serving as a renewed reminder of the command that he must only speak what God instructs him. Similarly, our passage may recount a final warning of this kind, adding to the definitive instructions already given to Moses before his departure from Midian (Exodus 4:21–23). The content of this warning will become apparent shortly.
The second point is that this passage is undoubtedly connected (contrary to the opinion of most modern commentators) to both the preceding and following passages. This is evident from expressions such as “sought to kill him,” which recalls the earlier verse (Exodus 4:19): “For all the men who sought your life are dead,” and from the word “met him,” which reappears in verse 27. Particularly significant is the reference to Moses’ son in verse 25, his firstborn son, as implied by the text, which corresponds to “my firstborn son” in verse 22 and “your firstborn son” in verse 23. The connection between these verses concerning firstborn sons will soon become evident.
The third point is that the central theme of the entire story is the circumcision of the child. This leads us to conclude that the primary purpose of this passage is undoubtedly related to the importance of this commandment.
According to the narrative, Moses’ son had not been circumcised at the appropriate time. The reason for this becomes apparent from what is written in Joshua 5:2–7 about the Israelites born in the wilderness who were not circumcised along the way. Moses, leading his people in the wilderness, did not ensure the fulfillment of this commandment, and the text does not hold him accountable. Thus, it seems that according to the prevailing view, travelers were exempt from circumcision due to the associated risks. Similarly, tradition recounts that Moses’ son was not circumcised on time, either because Moses, living as a sojourner in Midian, was considered a traveler or because the child may have been born shortly before the family’s departure from Midian, and the eighth day for circumcision occurred while they were traveling.
The text states, “It happened on the way,” and the expression “on the way” is notably repeated three times in the corresponding passage in Joshua (Joshua 5:4, 5, 7). While Moses was at the inn at night, “the Lord met him”—this likely means that he was struck with a severe illness (based on the Hebrew idiom attributing events directly to divine action, as discussed earlier in Exodus 4:21). This illness was so severe that it brought Moses to the brink of death, as implied by “sought to kill him.” At this point, Zipporah devised a plan to save her husband’s life. She had already learned from Moses about the significance of circumcision, considered in Israel (regardless of its original religious connotations in the ancient Near East) as the sign of the covenant between Israel and God—a symbol of dedicating oneself to divine service. She reasoned that, despite their exemption from circumcising their son while traveling, it was fitting for a man on a special mission from God to go beyond the letter of the law and impose greater stringency upon himself. Therefore, she performed the circumcision on her son.