Circumcision and the Covenant

You have your bibles with you, open them to Exodus chapter four. Exodus Chapter four will begin there in verse twenty four. Exodus chapter four beginning at verse twenty four. As that prepared this week, my mind continued to wonder. Wandered to the field of art, and specifically to a sculpture, Michelangelo's David, which is arguably the most recognizable piece of art from the Renaissance period. This towering seventeen foot statue, which stands in Florence, Italy, known worldwide as a timeless symbol of strength and youthful human beauty. Depicting David's resolve in facing the Philistine giant Goliath, the statue came to symbolize Florence's independence in the face of foes on every side. However, the statue, though beautiful though awe inspiring, is not perfect. No one can fault Michelangelo for his choice in depicting David's physique, the texture of his hair, or the glare in his eyes. The Bible does not give us these details about Israel's most famous and beloved king. However, there is one aspect of Michelangelo's sculpture that can be said to have missed the mark. Unlike the biblical David, Michelangelo's version is uncircumcised, and there is simply no way that this would have been the case. This was the influence of the Renaissance period, the influence of the ideal of Greek perfection. Since the establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant, the sin of circumcision marked male members of the Covenant community. In fact, the nature of the Covenant sion is so significant that we can say with confidence that David would not only have been circumcised, but we can say with confidence that it would have happened on the eighth day after his birth. We know this for a fact. Exodus four twenty four to twenty six is undoubtedly one of the most obscure and challenging passages in the entire Bible. In fact, as I thought of titles for the message this week, there was one title that continued to come to mind again and again and again, and the title was I don't know, Because as I continue to read this text, my answer to question after question after question was I don't know. I don't know, But there's one thing that we know. There's one thing that's clear that this text is about circumcision. What about circumcision, I don't know, but we'll see if we can figure it out. We'll do three things. Number One, we'll examine the difficulties of these text of this text, and there are many. Second, I'll try to explain the most plausible interpretation of this text in light of those difficulties. And then third, consider the implications of the text. First, let's read it the way we find it here in scripture. And then after we read it, we'll dive in to those three things. Beginning in verse twenty four, at a lodging place on the way, the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zaporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses's feet with it and said, surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me. So he let him alone. It was then that she said, a bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision. Amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord. That's the text. This is one of those weeks when I thought, you know, as pastor of preaching, part of my responsibility is to organize the texts, divide the texts, put him in preachable section, you know, segments, and then assign those segments. This should have been given to an intern if David Shifflet were still here. I don't know if you guys remember, but there was a series of messages where every time David got up, he got the most awkward, difficult, sensitive texts that we could possibly preach, and this would have been one of those. Let's deal with the questions first, because there are questions at every turn in this text. Question number one, who is him? That's the first question. Who is him? We begin at a lodging place on the way. The Lord met him. That's all we get. The Lord met him? Is it Moses? This is the most common answer that we find. This is the most common answer that exegies and expositors give, most common answer that commentators give, that this is Moses. Why did they give this answer because the text doesn't say Moses. In fact, Moses's name appears here in THEESV and in many translations. But if you notice there's an asterisk there, do you notice that if you look in your Bible, supporter took the flint and cut off her son's for skin and touched Moses's feet with it. There's a note there by Moses. The note says Moses's name is not in this text anywhere. That's an assumption. In the original Hebrew, it just says his feet, doesn't say whose feet. But the assumption is that on the way to the lodging place, the Lord met Moses. Why do you make this assumption? Will people make this assumption? Because if it's not Moses, then where is he? This is a journey from metying back to Egypt. If the one who has met here is not Moses, then where's Moses during all of this? The second question is why wouldn't Moses be the one to circumcise his son. He's the Hebrew, he's the father. Why would he not circumcise his son? So certainly he must be the one who is near death. And thirdly, the phrase at the end bridegroom of blood seems to point to Moses, although that phrase bridegroom of blood is not something that's found throughout the Bible, and it's not something that's translated easily, and broom of blood ud is not the translation that makes this the clearest. But for those reasons, the assumption is that it's Moses. Is it Moses's son. Is it Moses's son? It could be, as one commentator writes, since Subora touched Moses's feet with the blood of the foreskin, it is assumed that Moses was the one whom God was seeking to kill. However, Moses's name does not appear in the text in the original, it would have just read his feet, So it could be argued that this wasn't Moses at all, that God was seeking to kill, but that it was actually his son. But if not his son, If not Moses and it was his son, question is which son? Because the texture says him, which son? Would it have been the youngest son. That's one thing that we could probably say well with confidence, and not him. The youngest son is not the one whom the Lord was seeking to put to death. It is argue, however, that the youngest son is the one being circumcised. Keelan Dalitch argue that it is evident that Suppora only circumcised one of the two sons of Moses according to verse twenty, so that the other, no doubt, the elder, had already been circumcised in accordance with the law. Sounds reasonable. The only problem it's not what the text says. The text doesn't tell us that. The text doesn't say, Hey, he had two sons. One of them was already circumcised, the other one wasn't circumcised yet. And then this is what. It's not what the text says. Text just says all the way, there's a lodging place, and the Lord met him. Was it Gersham? Could be? Why would you argue that it was Gersham that was about to be put to death. Here's why I'm not convinced of it. But here's why it would make sense if you go to the paragraph before. At the end of that paragraph, there is a warning beginning of verse twenty two. Here's the warning that God says that Moses is to give to Pharaoh. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, thus says the Lord Israel is my firstborn son. And I say to you let my son go, that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son. This is the tenth plague foreshadowing of the tenth plague. Moses wasn't just given these three signs that we talked about, But God gave Moses all of the signs and talked to Moses about all the signs. The last sign that Moses is going to do before Pharaoh is the sign of the death of the firstborn. So in context, God just talked about the death of the firstborn, which is going to pass over the Israelites. Why because they are marked as God's people and because there's blood over their doorposts. Therefore, the death of the firstborn passes over Israel. Gersham is Moses' firstborn son, and he's not circumcised, which means he's not identified with the people of God. So on the way to what will eventually lead to the death of the firstborn in Egypt, God seeks to kill Moses' firstborn son because Moses hasn't marked him out as a Hebrew. That makes sense, but the text doesn't say it makes sense, it fits. The text doesn't say it, so we can't say it with certainty. We can't say it with confidence. By the way, be wary of people who are confident about things like this. When there are things in the Bible that are clear, we should preach them, and we should preach them hard. Amen, and make no apologies about preaching them hard because they're clear. But when the Bible is not clear. We had better be careful. So because of that, I can say to you that it makes a lot of sense that this would be Girsham. The Lord met him. The Lord met Girsham on the way and attempted to put him to death. However, we can't say it for certain. Second question, why is God trying to kill him? Whoever him is? So first of all, we don't know who him is. Secondly, why has God put trying to put him to death? Verse twenty four at a lodging place on the way, The Lord met him and sought to put him to death? Could it be Moses? Again, this is the most common answer most Hebrew scholars, most commentators, the overwhelming majority of them, say that this was Moses, that God was seeking to put Moses to death. It would seem to make sense then, this whole context, we're talking about Moses and Moses going down and so on and so forth, it would seem to make sense, especially with that last phrase, this braggroom of blood phrase. It would seem to make sense. And I can't argue against that. However, as I said, with the context and the warning of the death of the firstborn, it could also be argued that this is actually Grisham. To me, that makes more sense. It makes more sense in terms of who him is. It also makes more sense in terms of God put up attempting to put him to death. First of all, God has called Moses to go down and to do this work. So Moses is God's mouthpeace, Moses is God's spokesman, Moses is God's prophet. Moses has already angered God before Amen, and the last time Moses angered God for being disobedient. How did it end by basically God saying, fine, I'll get eron to go down and be your mouth peace. Now, all of a sudden along the way he wants to put him to death. That's difficult. But again can't say for certain that it's not the case, nor does it make a difference in the ultimate application of this text, but we'll get there in a little bit. Thirdly, why wasn't the sun circumcised? That's a major question in this whole text. Why wasn't the sun circumcised? Not only did the Hebrew circumcised, but Egyptians also circumcised. It wasn't the same kind of circumcision. And I don't want to get into the technicalities of the different kinds of circumcision, mainly because it just makes me highly uncomfortable to speak about the way that they did this. But just suffice to say that different kind of circumcisions in Egypt than there would have been in Israel. Go look it up. So here's Moses, who is a Hebrew who was raised as an Egyptian, and his boys not circumcised. Why can I be honest, I don't know. Oh, the Bible doesn't tell us that, nor is it necessary for us to know that in order to get to the application of this text. But listen to this from Calvin. If anybody's allowed to speculate on stuff, it's Calvin, he says. I therefore unhesitatingly conclude that vengeance was declared against Moses for his negligence, which was connected with still heavier sins. For he had not omitted his son's circumcision from forgetfulness or ignorance or carelessness, only, but because he was aware that it was disagreeable either to his wife or to his father in law. Therefore, lest his wife should quarrel with him or his father in law trouble him, he preferred to gratify them than to give occasion for divisions or enmity or disturbance. Text doesn't say that, but can't you see it. There's this Hebrew circumcision thing. The Midianites don't necessarily practice this Hebrew circumcision thing. They wouldn't be the only couple to ever disagree about whether or not to circumcise their son. There's some people in his room who've had that discussion and that disagreement about circumcising their sons. By the way, outside of the Middle East, America is about the only place in the world where people still circumcise their sons. Elsewhere in the world people don't do that. The Europeans don't do that. Asian cultures they don't do that. Middle Eastern cultures they do it for religious reasons. And then sort of here in America and so here in America there are families who have these discuss about the circumcision of their sons. It's not completely not completely out of the realm of possibility that this son wasn't circumcised because of a disagreement between Moses and his wife. That, by the way, answers another question, why is it Zipporah that hurriedly and quickly grabs the flint knight knife and performs the circumcision, perhaps because there have been discussions about this and she was unwilling to do this, and they've talked about this idea of the covenant and this sign of the Covenant and how important it was. And if there is a wife who was unwilling to give her son this sign, and suddenly death is knocking at the door, what mother wouldn't pick up the flint knife and do the deed right there on the spot. Gruesome though it would have been, because by the way, Moses is eighty years old and his sons are not babies. And that's all i'most say about that next question. I ask this because it's in the Bible, and the question has to be asked. Why did Zeppora do what she did with the foreskin? Isn't it great when you commit the systematic exposition and you can't just skip over text Verse twenty five. Then Zupporah took the flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched his feet with it. Again, Moses's name not in the original Hebrew. There's another translation issue here, and that translation issue is this more than likely. It wasn't this feat that we're touched, but it happened elsewhere and feet is just a polite way to put it. Why did she do that? Can I be honest with you, I don't know, but she did and it's significant and we'll talk about that when we apply this text. But this is not a normal practice. That's one of the things that makes this passage so difficult. There's very little about it that's normal. In fact, there's almost nothing about it that's normal. Question five, is this bridegroom of blood stuff? Again, in verse twenty five, Support took the 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. And again this is why most people, because the insertion of Moses's name instead of the word his, and because of this issue of bridegroom of blood, She's only got one bridegroom, and that's Moses. So because of this term bridegroom of blood, people look at that and say it must have been Moses whom she touched with this foreskin. However, that term bridegroom of blood can be translated a number of different ways. In fact, the same word that's translated here bridegroom, is the word that's used to describe the relationship between Moses and his father in law, because the word means technically a relation by law or by marriage, So it could be father in law, it could be brother in law, it could be mother in law, it could be sister in law. The word is used for a covenantal relationship that is not a relationship through birth, but a relationship that's entered in through covenant like marriage. So this could be translated, you are a covenant relation of blood to me, and that would be perfectly fine to translate it that way. If we translate it you are a covenant relationship by blood to me, then there's even stronger reason to believe that this is not talking about Moses. Question six, why do is Gouy leaving me alone? Verse twenty six? So he let him alone? And it was in that she said a bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision. There's a last question, what does this all mean? Because that's what really matters. We can't say for certain who the hymn is, We can't say for certain why God's seeking to kill him. We can't say for certain why is not circumcised. We can't say for certain why Zuppora does what she does the way that she does. We cannot say that for certain. However, there's a couple of things that help us. Number one translation is the key. Listen to this passage the way it would read in its original, without the assumptions. At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zapporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched his feet with it, and said, surely you are a covenant relative of blood to me. So he let him alone. It was then that she said a covenant relative of blood because of the circumcision. My preference in interpreting this is to say that this was Girsham, the one who was met at the lodging place, whom God attempted to kill. I'm very uncomfortable with that, because the overwhelming majority of Hebrew scholars and interpreters argue that this is Moses. There are, however, a few who agree with the idea that this is Girsham. Because I believe when you look at this in its context, and when you look at the discussion that happens just before it, when you look at God saying basically, I'm going to set my people free. I'm going to heart in Pharaoh's heart, and because of his hard heart, you're going to get to the tenth plag and the tenth plague is going to be the death of the firstborn. And I am going to mark out my people, and I'm going to protect my people by a blood covenant. And because of a blood covenant, my people will not lose their first born. Now, on the way down, God seeks to kill Grisham, who is Moses's firstborn son. Supporah takes the flint knife, and here I like Calvin's idea, because how do you explain why this individual is not circumcised. We don't know, but we know that Zapora is the one who takes the flint knife. The idea that she was against it, and this is why it hadn't happened. This makes sense. Your boy is about to die all of a sudden. Whatever qualms you had about circumcision, they're gone. She takes the knife, she cuts the foreskin, she applies the blood and says, now now we're related by covenant. Now we're part of this covenant people who are going to be protected from the plague of the death of the firstborn. By the way theologically this works. Even if that's Moses, that she does this too. But I prefer the idea that this was Grocer, although I cannot say for certain. Translation is the key circumcision is the locke just mentioned over seventy times in the Bible, ten times in Genesis seventeen, which is the first place where we see it. Listen to this in Genesis seventeen ten to fourteen. This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your offspring after you, every mail among you shall be circumcised. You should be circumcised, and the flesh of your force gins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not your offspring. Both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh and everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant again to me when I look at this passage, this difficult passage that no one can be certain about, in Exodus chapter four, in light of this covenant of circumcision given to Abraham, it makes sense that Gersham would have been in trouble not only because he's uncircumcised, but because of the work that his father is headed to Egypt to do that will ultimately end in the death of the firstborn sons of the non covenant people. This practice could be said to have been more sacred than even the Sabbath. John seven twenty one to twenty three. Listen to what Jesus says here. Jesus answered them, I did one work. They're angry him because he healed in the Sabbath. I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision, not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers. And you circumcise a man on the sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken. Are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body? Well, circumcision is huge. These are people who had problems with walking a certain distance on the Sabbath. Circumcision is minor surgery unless you're a grown man, then it's major. The difficulty of recovering from it is unbelievable, which is why in Genesis, the sons of Jacob, or to the kill of the Shechemites, had him do what be circumcised, and then a couple of days later, when no man was able to defend himself, they slaughtered all of them because under those conditions there was nothing that anyone can do. In the New Covenant we see talk of circumcision as well, but in a New Covenant it is a circumcision of the heart. And this is where I would disagree with my Presbyterian brethren and who want to argue basically that it's because of this idea of circumcision being carried over into the New Covenant that we give baptism, which is the new circumcision, to infants in order to identify them with the Covenant people. Just like the children of the Israelites were identified with the Covenant people. Small problem. There is circumcision in the New Covenant, and it's not fatism. It is the circumcision of the heart. The New Covenant is not like the Abrahamic Covenant. In the Abrahamic Covenant, you have two peoples. You have one that are His children according to the flesh, and you have the other who are His children according to the promise. This is clear to us in Galatians. In the New Covenant, everyone is circumcised. Just like in the Old Covenant. Everyone is circumcised, but in the New Covenant it's the circumcision of the heart. Not everyone is part of the New Covenant. Only believers are part of the New Covenant, which is why only believers are baptized. We are saying you are now part of the covenant people of God, because you have to Him by faith and you have been baptized. So we must not look at this national covenant with Israel, which is what the Mosaic Covenant is. This is where Baptist Covenant theology separates from our Presbyterian brethren. We do not believe that the Mosaic Covenant is part of the Covenant of grace. We also don't believe that it's part of the Covenant of works. It is a third kind of covenant. It is a national covenant with Israel. It is establishing unnational people. So we certainly wouldn't do it because of the Mosaic covenant. As far as the Abrahamic Covenant. It's the circumcision of our hearts. So there is a distinction for us. If translation is the key and circumcision is the lock that gets us into this passage, then the doorway is salvation. When you look at this in light of God's saving work, both in the Passover and in what the Passover pointed to, this makes even more sense. First, sinners are constantly in danger of God's wrath. We get uncomfortable with this passage. One of the reasons we get uncomfortable with this passage because all of a sudden, God's about to kill an innocent person. And we look at that, and we look at verse twenty four at a lodging place on the way, the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. And immediately we read that and we say that's not right. Why would God seek to put him to death? We don't know who him is. But if it's Moses or as Gersham, why what have they done. Here's a news flash. They both deserve to die because they're sinners. Here's a news flash, you deserve to die because you're a sinner. I have alluded on a number of occasions to the danger of reading exit this as though all Egyptians are sinful and guilty and all Israelites are sinless and blameless. That's not the case. This is not a story of sinners and saints, but a story of the elect and the reprobate. Neither Moses nor his sons deserve to be saved. Israel doesn't deserve to be saved. What they deserve is to be met at an end and killed by God. That's what they deserve. So anyone in this story who ends up not dying, it is because of grace, not because of merit. So our first problem with this text is not what God is doing. Our first problem is what we think people are deserving. That's why we get all up tight. What happened. Nobody's done anything to deserve death. Hey, here's a news flash. He's done anything to deserve not death. Amen. This is a reminder that every man stands condemned and deserving of death. Secondly, God's wrath can only be assuaged by the means he provides. The text makes it clear that it is the cutting of the foreskin and the smearing of the blood that assuages God's wrath. Nothing else would have sufficed, no matter how sincere Zuppora was. The problem was this covenant sign, and the only thing that would have assuaged God's wrath was the severing of this foreskin and the shedding of blood. Nothing else, no matter how sincere, she could have done anything to show God how sincere she was. But salvation is not to the sincere Romans ten one. Four brothers. My heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge, for being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Who's he talking about Jews, who are the most sincere religious people in the world, And Paul says, my heart's desire for them is that they would be saved because their sincerity is not enough. Thirdly, the means of saving God's people always involves a blood covenant Hebrews nine twenty two. Indeed, under the law, almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. It is Christ's blood that redeems us. It is the shedding of his blood that assuages the wrath of God. It is the blood of Jesus that is a propitiation for us. And it is only the blood of Jesus. And there is a picture here of one who is deserving of death outside the covenant community. And it is this severing and this application of blood that assuages the wrath of God. Only talking about a temporal salvation here, you and I need more than just to live through and encounter at an end. You and I need to survive death. You and I need to escape the wrath of God and hell. How do you do that? Not through the severing of a foreskin, not through any outward religious practice at all, but through God crushing and killing his only begotten son. That's how Israel is later saved when the Death Angel passes by, and they slaughter a lamb. The lamb dies, and they spread the blood on their houses. And later on and observing the meal to commemorate that night, Jesus says to his followers, he is that lamb, that that cup is his blood of the New Covenant. It is through the shedding of blood, and only through the shedding of blood, through Christ's blood, not just through your religious zeal. What does all of this mean. I can tell you that you want to know who him is. I got an opinion, but I could be wrong. Doesn't make all that much difference. You don't want to know who was circumcised? Not sure. I got an opinion. I could be wrong. Doesn't make all that much difference. You want to know who was touched with the blood? I don't know. I got an opinion, I could be wrong. Doesn't make all that much difference. Why, because here's what I know that this is a foreshadowing of the Passover, which is a foreshadowing of the crucifixion. So I know what this means, and what this means is God saves his people through the shedding of blood. In this small picture, zuppor God, either her son or her husband back. Praise God for that. Amen. But that's nothing, nothing compared to the fact that we stand condemned before all Holy God. And then every one of us deserves death, every one of us deserves hell. And yet all we, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us had turned to his own way. But God has caused the iniquity of us, all to be laid on him. Deserve to be cut off and not part of God's people. And yet God made him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. How Christ died for sin, once for all, the just, for the unjust, in order that he might bring us back to God. That's how it is through his blood. It is the blood of Christ. It is his death on the cross, that is all. How dare we come before God with anything else in our hands? How dare we come before God with anything at all in our hands. We do not come before God with our sincerity. We do not come before God with our religion. We do not come before God comparing ourselves to others. We come before God pleading the blood of Christ and acknowledging that it is our only hope. Oh sinner. Flee to Christ, trust in him, kneel before the cross and be washed in his blood. New, be made whole, be made clean. You cannot be sincere enough if you can. Christ died for nothing. You cannot be religious enough if you can. God the Sun shed his blood when you could have taken care of it yourself. Flee to Christ. Run to him. Run from your sin like Zipporah fleeing for the flint knife. Cut off anything and everything that would keep you from Christ. That thing that you love so dearly, that has a hold on you, that is keeping you from fleeing to Christ, cut it off, Cut it off, be done with it. Don't allow anyone or anything to keep you from Christ. Run to him, for he is indeed your only hope. Let's pray, Oh God, we thank you for the blood of Jesus, for the blood that cleanses us, for the blood that washes us, for the blood that makes us whole, For the blood that makes a way for us to be forgiven. For the blood that makes a way for us to be ranked before you and with you. For the blood that purchased us, For the blood that opened the way for us to be adopted sons and daughters of the Most High God. For the blood that has provided everything that we need to be kept and sanctified. For the blood that is our only hope, for entrance into the age to come, and to all of the delights that await your children there. Thank you for the blood. Grant by your grace, that we might find ourselves washed therein, that we might trust in nothing else, that we might trust in no one else, that we might rejoice in none other save the one who bled and died to save us. Grant that those under the sound of my voice might heed the spirit's call, might cut off everything that stands between them and the redemption that is found in Christ, that they would flee from it and flee to him, cling to him, hope in him, rejoice in him, delight in him, and be found in him. This is our prayer. This is the earnest cry of our very souls. And we ask it in that name that is above every name, that name at which every knee will bow and have it, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confessed, that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, in the name of Jesus, our Lord, Save your Master King Redeemer, bridegroom and friend. We pray Amen.