A friend of ours stopped by our house with her elementary school-aged son. As she stood chatting with my wife, Vicki, the boy climbed onto the back of the couch.
“Neil, get down off the couch,” the mother said.
The boy sat there unmoved as she continued to chat.
“Neil, get down off the couch,” she repeated, then kept talking with Vicki about other things.
The boy visibly stiffened his resolve. On his face and in his posture, you could see it: of all the things in the world Neil could do, he wasn’t going to get down from that couch.
The game was on.
“Neil, if you don’t get down off that couch, Sam and Vicki aren’t going to like you.”
Frankly, that’s irrelevant. To Neil, whether we like him or not was immaterial. (We like him. Years later I officiated at his wedding.)
The boy stayed put. Neil’s defiance had become the issue — not the couch, and not Sam and Vicki. The mother started digging in her purse. “Here, Neil, I’ll give you this candy bar if you get down off the couch.” When she pulled out the candy bar, he hopped down and fetched the candy bar.
Checkmate.
Mom loses.
Get this: she may think she’s rewarding him for his obedience. Actually, she’s paying him to disobey her. guess what she’s going to get lots more of?
Neil was obeying not his mother, but his sweet tooth. And the mother was catering to that….
…If you’re startled at the thought that you might actually be rewarding rebellion, whining, sassiness, and disobedience in your child, keep reading. None of us wants to be a parent that rewards the wrong thing in our child. This chapter can help you avoid that.
(p. 77-79 – italics and bold emphasis added)
The rest of the book is as on-point as the anecdote above. And while Crabtree’s diagnosis is sharp, his bedside manner is quite mild. I highly recommend his book (and hope to review it more fully later).
Have you ever read something in a footnote that was just too good to leave there? If you are like me, you can get “lost in a good footnote.” This post focuses on another great footnote.
Before you get to the quote, let me set the stage. Have you ever been hurting? Just completely consumed by grief or sorrow? If you remain in such a condition for long, you feel that there is no more joy in the world. The sun doesn’t seem fair, the flowers are dull, everything is meaningless. So what can you do to get yourself out of such a perilous state? This footnote has an answer.
At first it doesn’t sound like good news, but the Bible tells us that we must “rejoice with those who rejoice.” And perhaps that is the key. You have lost something, but they have not. You are hurting, but their hurt is of a lesser degree. Would you rob them of shared joy, by extending your grief to cover them too?
An others-focus may just free us from a pattern of self-despair. Looking away from ourselves, doesn’t mean we cease to grieve or hurt. But it does mean we see God at work in bigger and broader ways, with more people than just our immediate family.
This goes both ways, because we are called to “weep with those who weep.” So even our highest joys should be tinged with an awareness of the hurting of others. This is the sort of tangible togetherness and unity that should be the hallmark of Christian love and of the Church that Jesus founded.
Let me share the quote which set my mind to this direction. And please note that ultimately it is only the Holy Spirit and His work in us which enables such a radical others-orientation. May God bless all who ponder the Scripture behind the thoughts shared below.
In an earlier chapter, I spoke of the way that the Bible expands our minds by pulling us in opposite directions and that we must embrace the mystery and refuse to allow one truth to cancel out another. This is no less true of our emotional lives. One of the seemingly impossible commands in the Bible is found in Rom. 12:15: “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” The gospel lays both of these commands upon us. Those who suffer are called to add their joy to the joy of the blessed. Those who receive favor must join the grieving in the midst of their sorrow. And we must do so without allowing one emotion to tyrannize the other. The glad-hearted must not lord their blessings over the afflicted. The hurting must not allow their pain to drown out real joy when it’s given from God. Love must be genuine (Rom. 12:9), and we must endeavor to live in harmony with one another (Rom. 12:16). Practically speaking, this means that our lives will be characterized by the same heart as the apostle Paul, who lived “as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing” (2 Cor. 6:10). It also means that wisdom and propriety will govern our joy and sorrow, so that we move with the rhythms of Eccles. 3:4: “[There is] a time to weep, and a time to laugh.” And the only way that we’ll make any progress in getting these rhythms right is if we are open and honest in communicating with one another and if we are trusting in the grace of God to be sufficient for our every need. It is grace that enables the sorrowful to rejoice in the joy of others, especially when they receive something that we desperately want or have tragically lost. It is grace that enables the joyful to bear with the suffering of the grief-stricken, especially when our hearts are bursting with gladness. Grace must reign, love must cover a multitude of sins, wounds, and thoughtlessness, and Christ must do what is impossible for us.
The short account of Zipporah being forced to circumcise her son is one of the most enigmatic and puzzling texts for modern readers. I want to look at the text here briefly and allow Duane A. Garrett to help clear things up. Garrett is the author of the latest commentary in the Kregel Exegetical Library. His A Commentary on Exodus is absolutely superb, I am thoroughly enjoying it and hope to have a review up soon.
Here is our text, first in the ESV and then in Garrett’s translation provided in the commentary:
24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a 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!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision. (ESV)
24 Now it happened along the way at a lodging place that YHWH encountered him and sought to put him to death. 25 And Zipporah took a flint, and she cut off her son’s foreskin, and she touched his feet, and she said, “You are my hatan damim (kindsman by the blood of circumcision)!” 26 And he let him alone. In that episode she said hatan damim with reference to the circumcision ritual. (Garrett, p. 222-223)
I cannot reproduce Garrett’s entire discussion, but will provide the introduction to his discussion of this text. I’ll also summarize some of his many arguments (against the “standard interpretation” and for his own) and then present his conclusion. I’ll also excerpt his theological take-home points as well.
This text is very difficult. What would probably pass for the standard interpretation among evangelical Protestants is as follows. Moses had two sons, but he had not yet circumcised one of them. On the way to Egypt he was suddenly incapacitated (by a severe illness) as a punishment from God for this neglect. Moses, calling from his sickbed, told Zipporah what the problem was and that she had to circumcise the boy, and she performed the circumsion. By doing this, she averted the wrath of God against Moses. But she found the whole process disgusting and blamed Moses for putting her through the ordeal, so she threw the boy’s foreskin at Moses’s feet and called him bloddy and disgusting). Her revulsion toward what had happened was so great that she went back to her father at that time; we do not see her again until Exod. 18:2.
Every aspect of the above interpretation, except that Zipporah circumcised her son, is almost cerainly wrong…. (p. 225-226)
Some of his key arguments are that the text calls the boy “her son” and focuses on Zipporah, not Moses. There is no indication in the text that Moses is present with her at this time. The pronoun “him” likely points forward to the boy as being sick. The text doesn’t say Moses told Zipporah to do anything. Zipporah a shepherdess was likely very familiar wtih anatomy and familiar with circumcision rites in her own tribe. The most natural reading of the text is that she touches the boy’s feet – not those of Moses. “Feet” can be a euphemism for genitals, but doesn’t need to be in this case. It could be a ritual touching of the feet, similar to the annointing in Leviticus that puts blood and annointing oil on the priest’s big toes. The same word for “touch” here is used in Exod. 12:22 which may point to this being a ritual ceremony.
Garrett’s longest discussion is on the “bloody bridegroom” terminology and the use of the various Hebrew terms. He takes it as a liturgical expression that was probably used in Midianite circumcisions and it survives here in Exodus as a “linguistic fossil,” and does not follow normal Hebrew meaning. The specific interpretation he gives for the entire account does seem quite probable and I tend to agree with his view here on this term, particularly since it doesn’t mention Moses but is said of the circumcision act. Verse 26 has to remind the Hebrew readers what this phrase was directed toward, since it is an unusual expression even for Hebrew readers.
Here then is Garrett’s interpretation:
We might, therefore, suggest the following reconstruction of the story behind this text. Moses and Zipporah set out for Egypt. Along the way, their son suddenly became deathly ill. Zipporah recognized that the boy needed to be circumcised, and she did the act with a flint knife (flint can be more finely sharpened than can bronze and is therefore better for performing surgery). After the removal of the foreskin, she ritually touched the boy’s feet (or genitals) with her hand or the flint while saying, “You are hatan damim to me” (a member of my community by virture of the blood of circumcision). These formulaic words concluded the circumcision ceremony. The act formalized the inclusion of the boy in the community. After that, the boy recovered. Ziporah had turned aside the wrath of God.
Which son was it? We do not know, but since there is no birth report for Eliezer during their time in Midian, it is possible that he was born right about the time Moses set out for Egypt. This would explain Moses’s desire to get a donkey for the woman and the children. Why was one son not circumcised? Again, we do not know, but if the above conjecture is correct, it may be that they thought it dangerous to circumcise the boy right as they set out on a journey across the wilderness. ON the other hand, it may be that the uncircumcised son was Gershom, the firstborn, as some Jewish interpreters have maintained. Why is the boy called “her son” and not “Moses’s son”? Probably because Moses play no role in the story; this is about what Zipporah did.
An important feature of the text, however, is how it is linked to its context. In v. 20, Moses provides for “his sons,” while v. 23 speaks of “my son” and “your son,” and v. 25 speaks of “her son.” Thus, the issue of how parents treat their sons dominates this passage. In addition, as Sarna points out, 4:22-23 is focused on the life and death of the “firstborn,” while 4:24-26 indicates that the son must be circumcised in order to live…. This parallel further suggests that it was the son, not Moses, whose life was in danger…. In the broader context of Exodus, the portrayal of Zipporah turning aside God’s wrath from her son is paralleled in Moses’s doing the same for all of Israel in Exod. 32:9-14. (p. 230-232)
From this interpretation of the text, here are a few of Garrett’s theological take-home points:
The circumcision of Zipporah’s son makes the point that one cannot be considered to be part of Israel, and so to be YHWH’s son, unless one is circumcised. For the Israelites, the warning was that they could only escape the great wrath of God directed against Egypt’s sons by being sure that their own sons were circumcised. By analogy, one is not one of God’s people by mere association….
Zipporah, in her actions, demonstrates spiritual insight applied to the protection of her children. Spiritual wisdom and intervention is necessary in order to save one’s children from destruction….
Christ is the supreme example of the obedient son. He is also the true firstborn of God, and he provided for us the circumcision that removes the defilement of the flesh and allows us to join the people of God (Eph. 2:11-13; Col. 2:11). (p. 232)
I found this treatment extremely helpful and illuminating. This is an example of the care with which Garrett handles the text and is representative of his exegetical treatment throughout the commentary. He is not usually offering an innovative interpretation (as he does above), but he brings clarity and his masterful knowledge of Hebrew to bear on the questions at hand.
Check out the book’s detail page at Kregel.com, where you can find an excerpt. Or pick up a copy at any of the following retailers:
I’ve done 40 Quotes to Note posts, over the years now, and I have yet to post a quote from Charles Spurgeon! Perhaps I haven’t because he is so quotable, everyone else quotes him. But I stumbled across this quote again as I was teaching through my Sunday School series on Reformation doctrine again this Fall.
The above graphic was produced with the help of Logos 6’s visual copy feature. Highlight text from a work in Logos and easily create a quotable graphic as you see below with just a few clicks! To learn more about Logos 6 click here.
Logos gives the source of the quote as: Spurgeon, The Sword and Trowel: 1874 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1874), 44. I originally found it in Joel Beeke, Living for God’s Glory (Reformation Trust, 2008), 60. Beeke’s source was: Spurgeon, C.H. Spurgeon Autobiography, Vol. 1: The Early Years, 1834-1859 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 166.
As we think on Christ’s resurrection, this Easter, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that we are not mere bystanders, watching Christ’s resurrection. We are not just waiting to be resurrected only in the future. Christ’s resurrection does and should have a big impact in our lives now.
G.K. Beale in his massive New Testament biblical theology, argues that resurrection is perhaps the key theme in the New Testament. Resurrection involves a new-creation, and is simultaneous with Christ’s kingdom. His kingdom brings new creation, undoing the sin and brokenness of our lives and all of this world we live in. Believers have begun to experience new creation life and kingdom living, but one day we will experience it far more fully than now — physically as well as spiritually — in the ultimate New Kingdom of Christ Jesus.
Let me quote Beale on the importance the Resurrection should have for Christian living:
In Romans, Christ’s resurrection is sometimes viewed as the basis for believers’ resurrection existence that begins in this life (6:4-5, 8-9, which could be taken to indicate the saints’ future resurrection). That present resurrection existence is in mind is apparent, since in 6:11, 13 Paul understands the references in 6:4-10 to form the basis for concluding that believers presently should be “alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11) and should “present [themselves] to God as those alive from the dead” (6:13).
Consequently, Paul’s affirmation of believers’ possession of “eternal life” (6:22-23) is likely an already-not yet reality. Hence, saints are not merely like resurrected beings; rather, they actually have begun to experience the end-time resurrection that Christ experienced because they are identified with him by faith…
That [Paul] intends to refer to literal resurrection is apparent from observing that he parallels it with being in “the likeness of his death” in 6:5a, which refers to real identification with his death, such that “our old man was crucified with Him” (6:6) and believers have really “died” (6:7-8). Paul does not refer to identification with Christ’s death in a metaphorical manner. So likewise believers are in the “likeness” of Christ’s resurrection because they actually have begun to be identified with it and participate in it…
If saints are only like Christ’s resurrection, then Paul’s exhortation to them to live as resurrected beings is emptied of its force: if Christians have begun to be end-time resurrected creatures, then they have resurrection power not to “let sin reign in [their mortal bodies]… but present [themselves] to God as those alive from the dead” (6:12-13).
The relation of the “indicative” to the “imperative” in Paul’s writings has been an issue of some debate. But if the above is a correct analysis of the saints’ resurrection life, then the basis of Paul issuing commands to people is that such people have the ability to obey the commands because they have been raised from the dead, are regenerated, and are new creatures who have the power to obey. In fact, in 6:4 Paul refers to this resurrection life with new-creational language: “newness [kainotes] of life” ( or “new life”), a cognate of the word kainos found in 2 Cor. 5:17: Gal. 6:15 in the well-known inaugurated eschatological expression “new creation,” where in both cases it refers to resurrection life….
Thus, Paul does not give commands to live righteously to those outside the community of faith. This is because they do not have this power of the inbreaking age of the new creation, but are still part of the old age (the “old man” [6:6]), in which they are dominated by sin, Satan, and the influence of the world (so Eph. 2:1-3).
Not taking seriously enough the resurrection language applied to the Christian’s present experience to designate real reschatological resurrection existence, albeit on the spiritual level, has unintentionally eviscerated the ethical power of church teaching and preaching, since Christians must be aware that they presently have resurrection power to please and obey God. This is why in Rom. 6 and elsewhere Paul employs Christ’s latter-day resurrection as the basis for believers’ resurrection identity and for his exhortation that they rule over sin. (G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, [Baker Academic, 2011], p. 250-251)
I recently finished a helpful little book on parenting by Sam Crabtree, Parenting with Loving Correction: Practical Help for Raising Young Children. In a chapter entitled “Reward Obedience, Not Disobedience” Crabtree shares the following pointed anecdote.
