Exodus

[@mkl62]

Exodus 4:18-23. Today is June 15, 2023. And on this day, let us pray for people dealing with trauma.

[@rickardnolan3019]

The circumcision God is looking for is always the same. That circumcision performed on her son was really an act of faith to show the circumcision of her heart and the circumcision is when God breaks away the stony hardness of unbelief and you fall on your face and worship from a soft heart of flesh and leave the forskin and sin of unbelief at His feet and follow Him. You are Jesus’s bride. He says “go into all of the world” and at the same time He says “come pick up your cross and follow me” and I will do signs and miracles and wonders and save my people through you. And by your hands they will see my love and devotion to my family. And the enemy will tremble and my family will draw near to ME, their Lord and Savior and Father and God.

[@felixbedzrah748]

Thanks Rickard for sharing ..Very helpful

[@geetadevadas668]

Why did God seek to kill Moses was well explained .I have now understood Exodus 4:24 .Its interesting to know more of it to understand those sentences.

[@917-l1o]

Thanks brother. Love it when u yell real quick. 😂. We ought to be vigilant

[@busker153]

I have always heard and understood "him" to be Moses. I heard that God sought to kill him, and was going about it slowly through sickness, instead of with a flaming sword, or some otherwise quick and dramatic method. This would explain why Moses did not perform the circumcision himself; why Zipporah had to do it. Of course, as I was typing this, it occurred to me that perhaps Zipporah was the one refusing to allow the right like a typical heathen might be expected to do, and therefore she was forced to do it herself to keep her means of financial support alive. Hmmm... Yeah, who knows...

[@sheela5369]

What about the other son of Moses? Circumcision is a sign of covenant and that all males are to be circumcised?

[@DrJohnStevenson]

That is a good question. The answer is that the Scriptures don't tell us about the other son. Had he already been circumcised? Was he circumcised at this point and the Biblical record does not mention it? We don't know.

[@sheela5369]

@@DrJohnStevenson Thank you

[@LayzieLoCc]

i googled this because i saw the tattoo on 2 pacs back

[@Driv3rLVTM]

Me to

[@sonotheman]

God sought to kill the son of Moses NOT Moses! First and foremost IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT GOD WOULD TRY TO KILL MOSES! WHY? We have Isaiah 55:11, " so is my word that goes out from my mouth -it will not return to me unfulfilled;but it will accomplish what I intend,and cause to succeed what I sent it to do.” GOD HAD TOLD MOSES THAT HE WAS CHOSEN TO FREE THE HEBREWS IN EGYPT FROM SLAVERY AND TO FULFILL THE COVENANT GOD HAD MADE WITH ABRAHAM! Ezekiel 12:25 repeats the message! So the WORD was sent and it could not come back void! GOD was obligated to protect Moses and give him all the resources necessary to complete that which Moses was chosen to do! The same with Jonah! Running and hiding could not stop the word of GOD and eventually Jonah fulfilled what he was chosen to do! This is also repeated in the case of David and of course Yeshua (Jesus)! Furthermore the original Hebrew texts NOT THE TRANSLATIONS is very important! The pronoun "him" is the key! The original Hebrew text gives us the answer! The pronoun "him" used in the original Hebrew is 3rd person masculine singular! So this verse is referring to the son of Moses, NOT Moses! Here are the original texts of both times it is used; First at "God met him" original Hebrew is (וַיִּפְגְּשֵׁ֣הוּ), Second at "to kill him" original Hebrew is (הֲמִיתֽוֹ׃) The original Hebrew is 3rd person masculine singular in both case! So with the pronoun "him" referring to the son of Moses, the verse makes sense! So God came across the son of Moses and Zipporah and was about to kill their son then Zipporah acted by circumcising her son to save his life! NO CONTRADICTION, NO CONFUSION! GOD IS NOT A LIAR! AND NOT A MAN THAT HE SHOULD CHANGE! MOSES WAS CHOSEN AND HAD TO COMPLETE WHAT HE WAS CHOSEN TO DO! Moses could not be killed or harmed or blocked in anyway from doing what God chose him to do so that the WORD of God would not come back void, but complete the purpose for which it was sent! Interesting point here is that even if Zipporah had not circumcised her son and God had killed his son, Moses would still have done everything the WORD of God had been sent to accomplish through him!

[@DrJohnStevenson]

Isaiah 55 had not yet been written. And to be fair, when we read that "the Lord sought to put him to death," it describes an action on God's part that He knew would not come to completion. But the passage itself seems fairly straightforward. Moses has been the subject of the previous verses, so it would be difficult to interpret the pronominal suffix as referring to anyone but Moses. Indeed, the NIV is admittedly a bit interpretive when it renders the passage: At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. (Exodus 4:24 NIV).

[@sonotheman]

@@DrJohnStevenson I am a bit shocked that you say Isaiah 55:11 had not been written! God is the same yesterday today and forever! So the date it is written has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of what it says about the character of GOD! The overlying principle demonstrated by God over and over again is that the word must complete the purpose for which it was sent and that His chosen vessel WILL complete the tasks given him/her! You did not address the pronoun "he" in the original Hebrew being 3rd person! God is not a God of confusion! Did you ever consider that the sins of the father were being visited on the son as Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7 indicate? Moses was in a state of disobedience to a covenant that he was about to be be used to bring to pass and when God saw this He was about to visit the sin of Moses on his son? Zipporah obeyed the covenant and her son's life was saved? "God was about to kill him" is clearly stated in the text (NOTHING SUPPORTS YOUR STATEMENT, "it describes an action on God's part that He knew would not come to completion."

[@DrJohnStevenson]

Don't be shocked. Instead, do a study of progressive revelation. Yes, the suffix is a third masculine singular and that fits Moses quite nicely.

[@DrJohnStevenson]

@@sonotheman I had to cut my reply short earlier as church was about to begin. Going back to the language of Exodus, merely look at who are the possible referents to what you correctly noted as the 3rd masculine singular: So MOSES took HIS wife and his sons and mounted them on a donkey, and returned to the land of Egypt. MOSES also took the staff of God in his hand. The LORD said to MOSES, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn. 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."'" Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met HIM and sought to put HIM to death. (Exodus 4:20-24). The 3rd masculine singular is obviously not the Lord and it is obviously not Pharaoh. It cannot be one of the sons of Moses since they had only been mentioned collectively up to this point in the context. This means it can only refer to Moses. He is the obvious referent of the 3rd masculine singular.

[@DelbertTritsch]

Take my logic for what it’s worth, but the fact that Zipporah had a chance to save her son proves God gave her that chance. If God’s killing Moses would’ve constituted His being untrue to Himself (and I don’t believe it would have), God knew that blood was going to save him. If God is intent to kill someone without any escape for them, they’ll be killed.

[@sheezamann2724]

none of this is real

[@bobbyfischer6149]

How so

[@mcdaniels101]

Why are you even up in this?

[@puga9185]

I can see all past present and future and @sheeza Mann is correct I can confirm