Moses was unfaithful when called

[donfriesen1]

part 1

Originally Posted by votivesoul

thx for your observations. Criticisms always feel unwelcome but are often times necessary. I will take seriously your comments to be careful on your points not to do so in the future.

. Rather, i had formulated my doctrine much before this statement was penned. When i used 'perfect' it was in response to a statement made.

whether the word 'faithful' is in here in the passage or not doesn't change the fact the that moses's son wasn't circumcised in accordanace with the covenant. Whether the words unfaithful or disobedient or 'ignorant of the practice' or any other of many are used to describe moses doesn't change the knowledge that the lord imposed himself into their situation by attempting to kill moses. We assume it to be the lack of circumcision. Thus moses could be described as unfaithful or any other suitable word.

(we all read into the text using our personal to-date resources, when the absense of details compels us to) ...

. yes, true, that i've assumed and built my case on assumption.

I would ask how you personally would describe a man such as moses, a highly educated man who though raised by/as an egyptian, at some point in his adult life determines that he will leave the egyptian ways and help the people of his birth parents. To my thinking he would have had to have had knowledge of his people and their ways, which would include the circumcision which was a key point of jewish culture/religion started with abraham. The lord impressed on him that those of his children who would not submit to circumcision would be cut-off, and i assume this to mean from a place in the covenant relationship with god. The culture which was prominent both among jews and other nations was of compliance to social norms within their culture, respect for elders and family honour. As you and esaias have implied, the eyptian culture had erased much of the influence of jewish culture and replaced it with theirs, including the disappearance of circumcision. I disagree with this assumption and think that the social climate that prevailed in the relationship between their two cultures cemented the differences. Ie: The imposition of death of jewish babies by the egyptians would galvanise a tendency to make the jew say 'we are not going to bend our knee to your ways, especially because you attempt to kill our children.' thus, human nature being what it is, it would ensure the retention of their own jewish culture. Admittedly, these are only impressions of what i think happened and not a recitation of what has been learned from historical facts.

With that also, the story in ex4 has elements in it that contribute to believing that moses had knowledge of circumcision and wasn't ignorant of its need. See the following.

Why would the lord take such a high-handed approach with moses in trying to kill him, when a gentler approach would do, of one who you say was unknowing of the need to circumcize. It doesn't make sense that the heavy hammer is the response to someone's lack of knowledge.

Ex4 says that zipporah circumcised one son. If moses had been ignorant of circumcision, then both of his boys would have needed it, not just one. A possible explanation of only circumcizing one son is that the other was already circumsized. The following makes sense to my mind and isn't original with me: Moses marries and soon has a son. Knowing of circumcision he asks that their son be circumcised. The newly-wed woman relents, because of her wish not to make waves with her new husband - keeping family peace. But the heart of the new mom is torn apart by the cries of her first child because of the pain, in a culture which doesn't practise infant circumcision. When the second son arrives she decides to dig in her heels on its circumcision. She rallies family and friends in a culture which doesn't circumcize infants and this causes the lone jew to back down on his desires because he is one against many. Then he gets the call for the exodus and the lord shows up to remind them of something which had been shoved to the background. When the lord attempts to kill the head of the family, the one responsible for decisions, he doesn't try very hard, obviously not using all his potential, because he does it more to convince zipporah than moses, that infant circumcision is important, necessary. That she relents with reluctance is shown by the contempt shown in throwing the foreskin at moses feet. Though a hypothetical story, if true in essence, it gives a plausible explanation of the few verses which lacks details. It shows plausible reasons why only one son was now circumcised and not the two, when moses wasn't ignorant of circumcision. It fits well with both cultures represented.

It is unlikely that only one would be circumsided had moses been ignorant of the command, for surely two would now be circumcised, in light of almost being killed because of any lack of knowledge of circumcision.

i would assume most males to be so but not likely all. What happened in egypt was to the descendants of the sons of jacob. Did jacob and some sons not know personally his grandfather abraham? After joseph dies a pharaoh comes who did not know the goodness shown to all of egypt by a jew. We are not talking about the expiration of large amounts of time, are we, from those who knew abraham and the covenant of circumcision made with him. Had large amounts of time expired it might be more likely to be true that they had forsaken the ways of their forefather. But in the earlier times of israel in egypt it shown it is less likely they would have departed for circumcision. ...

for moses egypt is 40 yrs in the past.

agreed, differently. ...

...this is also an assumption, which all do in absense of scriptural details, leading to some seeing it one way and others another. Each may be right or each may be wrong, but not both right if contradictory.

thus you now also use assumption, but in saying that a tradition can be correctly transmitted in midianite culture over time but not in a jewish culture while in egypt. While they are in different circumstances i think you will see the point i make. Strangely, the midianites practised a circumcision of bridegrooms, not infants. That zipporah knew what immediate response to do with the uncircumcised son when the lord appeared shows that this was an open/known topic in the moses family. That zipporah knew how to do an infant circumcision is explained how? Perhaps by witnessing the first son's circumcision? The presence of the instruments necessary to do circumcision leads to questions which may be explained by having had a previous circumcision, of the first born.

You say that the midianites knew of circumcision because they are descendants of keturah, implying that they retain the knowledge of it over time. The historical record of infant circumcision isn't there for midianites but record of a circumcision of bridegrooms is. In their isolation and in times gone by they changed what was given to abraham. Still to this day the jews retain that which was given to abraham because it was of eternal weight to them and he had taught his children well.

. I choose to see the few given facts differently, thinking it more logically explains what is seen.

yet we would not use the word 'faithful' to describe paul as faithful while dedicated with wrong zeal toward god.

thus you describe a midianite who was far from the people of israel as knowing more than moses who dwelt near them. You see the logic at work here?

you present very strong points for your case. Still, paul was shown in ac9 as chosen to preach the gospel before he was born again and before he had proved himself faithful - strong evidence for my view point that god calls some who aren't proved faithful.

To be continued...

.